SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMP.C.C.S.E.U. Vs B. YASHODABAI .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,MADAN B. LOKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-007130-007130 / 2002
Diary number: 19231 / 2002
Advocates: A. SUBBA RAO Vs
C. N. SREE KUMAR
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7130 OF 2002
South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees Union ... Appellant
Versus
B. Yashodabai and others ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.1683 of 1998 on
14th August, 2002, this appeal has been preferred by the
South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society
Employees’ Union.
Page 2
2
2. It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave
rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of
the appellant-union to undue hardship and long-drawn
litigation.
3. The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit
Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), had framed
rules governing service conditions of its employees and the
said rules had been approved by the Registrar of Co-op.
Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This
Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343 of 1988, had decided that there
was no reservation policy for the employees of the Society in
the matter of promotion to higher cadre. The said decision
had been taken by this Court for the reason that there was a
dispute whether the policy of reservation was to be followed
only at the stage of recruitment of the employees or it was
also to be followed in the matter of giving promotion to the
higher cadre. After considering all relevant factors and
relevant rules and regulations, this Court had come to a
specific conclusion that there was no provision with regard to
Page 3
3
giving benefit of reservation of any kind to the employees of
the society in the matter of their promotion. The said issue
had arisen initially for the reason that even in the matter of
promotion, the policy with regard to reservation had been
followed by the society and some promotions were given on
the basis of reservation policy and the said policy was
challenged by way of a writ petition in the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh and ultimately in the said proceedings, this
Court had finally come to a conclusion in Civil Appeal No.4343
of 1998 that in the matter of promotion, policy of reservation
was not to be followed and as a consequence thereof, the
persons who had been wrongly promoted on the basis of
reservation policy had to be reverted.
4. In the aforestated circumstances, so as to correct the
mistake which had been committed by the society and to give
effect to the judgment delivered in the aforestated appeal,
the Society had issued orders of reversion to the employees
who had been wrongly promoted. One such order dated 12th
June, 1998 was served upon the concerned employees, who
Page 4
4
had been wrongly promoted on the basis of their caste and
creed. The said order dated 12th June, 1998 was challenged
by them by filing Writ Petition No.17756 of 1998 in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5. It is really very strange that the writ petition
challenging the aforestated order dated 12th June, 1998 was
allowed and the aforestated order was quashed and set aside
by the High Court on 6th August, 1998.
6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Single
Judge of the High Court, Writ Appeal No.1638 of 1998 had
been filed by other employees of the society who had been
aggrieved by the wrongful promotions given by the Society on
the basis of the reservation policy. The said Writ Appeal had
also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court
by an order dated 14th August, 2002.
7. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-
employees who are aggrieved by the judgment delivered in
Writ Appeal No.1638 of 1998.
Page 5
5
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-
employees’ union had submitted before this Court that the
High Court had committed a grave error by reconsidering the
issue which had already been decided by this Court. Once
this Court had decided in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 that the
employees of the Society were not entitled to promotion on
the basis of any reservation policy, the High Court could not
have come to a different conclusion, when the judgment
delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 was sought to
be implemented by issuance of an order dated 12th June, 1998
and the High Court had committed a grave error by setting
aside the said order dated 12th June, 1998.
9. The learned counsel had further submitted that once
this Court decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it
cannot be said that the judgment delivered by this Court is
per incuriam or this Court had not considered all relevant
factors while delivering the said judgment. So as to
substantiate the aforestated submission, the learned counsel
had relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court in
Page 6
6
Government of Goa v. A.H. Jaffar and sons and another
2008(11) SCC 18 and Suganthi Suresh Kumar v.
Jagdeeshan 2002(2) SCC 420.
10. It had been finally submitted that the different view
taken by the High Court is absolutely improper and therefore,
the appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the employees, who had taken advantage of the reservation
policy and had got promotion to the higher cadre, submitted
that the High Court had rightly considered all relevant factors
which had not been considered by the Supreme Court.
According to him, certain important and relevant factors had
been ignored by this Court while delivering the judgment in
C.A. No.4343 of 1988. According to him, as the High Court
had considered all other relevant factors, which this Court had
not considered, the judgment delivered by the High Court was
just and proper and, therefore, the appeal should be
dismissed.
Page 7
7
12. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have
also considered the submissions made, the judgments relied
upon by the counsel, the earlier judgment delivered by this
Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 and the impugned judgment.
In our opinion, the High Court has committed a grave error by
taking a different view than the one which had been taken by
this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988, especially when the rules
governing the promotion policy had not been amended after
the aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court.
13. It is pertinent to note that a review application had
been filed in the aforestated C.A. No.4343 of 1988 and the
same had been rejected and therefore, the judgment
delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 had become
final.
14. Once in pursuance of a judgment delivered by this
Court orders had been issued by the Society to its employees
who had been wrongly promoted, the High Court could not
have held that the orders were not valid because there were
Page 8
8
certain other factors which had made the promotions given to
the concerned employees valid.
15. In our opinion, the High Court should not have
considered any other factor especially when this Court had
come to a final conclusion that the policy with regard to
reservation in the matter of promotion to the employees was
not legal and proper.
16. We are of the view that it was not open to the High
Court to hold that the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A.
No.4343 of 1988 was per incuriam.
17. If the view taken by the High Court is accepted, in our
opinion, there would be total chaos in this country because in
that case there would be no finality to any order passed by
this Court. When a higher court has rendered a particular
decision, the said decision must be followed by a subordinate
or lower court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set
aside. The High Court had considered several provisions
which, in its opinion, had not been considered or argued
Page 9
9
before this Court when C.A. No.4343 of 1988 was decided. If
the litigants or lawyers are permitted to argue that something
what was correct, but was not argued earlier before the higher
court and on that ground if the courts below are permitted to
take a different view in a matter, possibly the entire law in
relation to the precedents and ratio decidendi will have to be
re-written and, in our opinion, that cannot be done. Moreover,
by not following the law laid down by this Court, the High
Court or the Subordinate Courts would also be violating the
provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
18. We do not want to go into the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents before the
High Court for the simple reason that it was not open to them
to advance any argument which would run contrary to the
judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988. In
our opinion, the High Court did something which would be like
setting aside a decree in the execution proceedings !
19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view
that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
Page 10
10
the High Court committed a serious error in law by not
following the judgment delivered by this Court and by
quashing and setting aside the order dated 12th June, 1998,
which had been issued to the concerned employees so as to
give effect to the Judgment dated 13th January, 1988 delivered
by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988.
20. The impugned judgment delivered by the High Court is
set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
………..……………….J (ANIL R. DAVE)
………..……………….J (MADAN B. LOKUR)
…..…………………….J (KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 8, 2014