Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the directions issued earlier under Article 142 of the Constitution, including the direction affecting pre-1987 Traffic Apprentices and the protection against recovery of amounts already paid, were valid and liable to be interfered with.
Analysis: The controversy concerned a cadre-wide service benefit and not an individualised dispute. The prior judgment had upheld the Railway Board's memorandum fixing the cut-off date and had issued consequential directions to maintain uniformity among similarly placed employees, while protecting those who had already received payment from recovery. The power under Article 142 permits the Supreme Court to pass such order as is necessary to do complete justice, but it cannot be used to override express substantive law. On the facts, the earlier directions were found to be a proper exercise of that constitutional power because they prevented an unfair and discriminatory advantage to some employees over others in the same cadre. The complaint that the appellants were not heard earlier did not furnish sufficient ground to reopen the earlier decision on merits.
Conclusion: The earlier directions were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to issue consequential directions to do complete justice and to neutralise unfair advantage among similarly placed persons, but the power must be exercised consistently with express substantive law and cannot be used to create an impermissible conflict with it.