2024 (7) TMI 1673 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Rules Appellate Orders Override Lower Court Judgments Under Doctrine of Merger and Article 142

State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Versus Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors.

The SC held that the High Court erred in treating its earlier decision as final and enforceable independent of the Supreme Court's subsequent order. The ... Discrepancy in the pay scales of SDI/ABSA and DBSA of the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vis-à-vis the Headmasters of Junior High Schools - applicability of doctrine of merger - HELD THAT:- The High Court has construed narrowly the ratio of the decision of this Court in Supreme Court Employees’ [1989 (7) TMI 333 - SUPREME COURT] which encapsulated that when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed in limine, there is no law laid down under the aegis of Article 141 of the Constitution. Hence, the judgement against which such petition was preferred becomes final and conclusive so as to operate as res judicata between the parties thereto. In stark contrast, the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 8869/2003 by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2010 [2010 (12) TMI 1370 - SUPREME COURT] was not a dismissal simpliciter or in limine. Instead, the appeal was dismissed after taking into consideration the root-cause and consequential steps taken by the State towards rectifying the anomaly in the grant of revised pay scales. To say it differently, the Civil Appeal was not dismissed on the premise that the judgement of the High Court dated 06.05.2002 was a correct statement of law. This Court in fact found that no issue survived for adjudication, for the obvious reason that the State Government had volunteered to redress the grievance of the Respondents and other similarly placed employees through the proposed Policy. It is true that the Proposed Policy did not enure a decision binding on both sides for want of mutual consent. However, leaving aside a microscopic evaluation, this Court expressly approved the said Proposed Policy. The observation that nothing survived in the appeal for adjudication leaves no room to doubt that not only was this Court satisfied with the proposal mooted before it, it also bound down the State and commanded it to implement the same. The doctrine of merger although has its roots in common law principles, but has been deeply interspersed in Indian jurisprudence, through a series of decisions. This Court in Kunhayammed [2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] elucidated this doctrine which has been further affirmed and reiterated in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now known as Khoday India Ltd.) & Ors. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (Under Liquidation) represented by the Liquidator [2019 (3) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT]. In Kunhayammed this Court has expressly held that 'On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C.' These decisions indubitably hold that if Special Leave was not granted and the petition was dismissed by a reasoned or unreasoned order, the order against which such Special Leave Petition is filed would not merge with the order of dismissal. However, once leave has been granted in a Special Leave Petition, regardless of whether such appeal is subsequently dismissed with or without reasons, the doctrine of merger comes into play resulting in merger of the order under challenge with that of the appellate forum, and only the latter would hold the field. Consequently, it is the decision of the superior court which remains effective, enforceable, and binding in the eyes of the law, whether the appeal is dismissed by a speaking order or not. The High Court therefore fell in error on assuming that its previous decision dated 06.05.2002 was intact and enforceable, independent of the order passed by this Court in the Civil Appeal arising therefrom. On the same analogy, the High Court’s holding that its previous decision dated 06.05.2002 would operate as res-judicata, also cannot sustain being erroneous in law. This is a fit case to invoke the extraordinary powers held by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. It is well settled that Article 142 empowers this Court to pass orders in the ‘larger interest of the administration of justice’ and ‘preventing manifest injustice’ - The Impugned Judgement of the Division Bench in its entirety and that of the Single Judge of the High Court in part, are set aside. Appeal allowed in part. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) are entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 with effect from 01.07.2001 or only from 01.12.2008 as per the Government Order of 2011. 2. Whether the earlier High Court judgment dated 06.05.2002 directing grant of higher pay scale to SDI/ABSA and DBSA stands merged and superseded by the subsequent order dated 08.12.2010 of the Supreme Court and the 2011 Government Order. 3. Application and scope of the doctrine of merger in the context of appellate orders passed by the Supreme Court and its effect on prior High Court judgments. 4. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the High Court judgment of 06.05.2002 after the Supreme Court's order dated 08.12.2010. 5. Legality and propriety of recovery of excess payments made to retired employees who were paid higher pay scales than entitled. 6. Whether delay in filing the intra-court appeal by the State against the Single Judge's judgment dated 02.02.2018 ought to have been condoned by the High Court. 7. The extent of judicial interference permissible in State policy decisions regarding cadre restructuring, pay scale fixation, and merger of posts. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement of SDI/ABSA and DBSA to Higher Pay Scale from 01.07.2001 or 01.12.2008 - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The pay scales of State Government teachers were revised based on the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations, effective 01.07.2001. The 2001 Government Order revised pay scales of Headmasters but did not revise those of SDI/ABSA and DBSA, leading to pay disparity. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the 2011 Government Order merged the posts of SDI/ABSA and DBSA into a single cadre of Block Education Officers with pay scale Rs. 7500-12000, notionally effective from 01.01.2006 and monetary benefits from 01.12.2008. The Court held that the 2011 Order was a bona fide attempt by the State to rectify pay anomalies and was approved by the Supreme Court in its 2010 order. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court found no legal basis to grant the higher pay scale retrospectively from 01.07.2001 as claimed by the Respondents. The pay scale granted under the 2011 Order, effective from 01.12.2008, was held to be the correct and enforceable entitlement. - Conclusions: The Respondents and similarly placed employees are entitled to pay scale Rs. 7500-12000 as per the 2011 Order, notionally from 01.01.2006 and actually from 01.12.2008. Earlier claims for pay scale from 01.07.2001 were not upheld. Issue 2: Effect of the Doctrine of Merger on the High Court Judgment dated 06.05.2002 and the Supreme Court Order dated 08.12.2010 - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The doctrine of merger, as explained in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and other decisions, provides that when a superior court grants leave and disposes of an appeal, the lower court's order merges into the superior court's order, which alone remains effective. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the High Court judgment dated 06.05.2002 stood merged into the Supreme Court's order dated 08.12.2010, which dismissed the appeal after considering the State's proposed policy to redress pay anomalies. The earlier High Court judgment lost its independent existence and enforceability. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Single Judge had erroneously held that the High Court judgment operated as res judicata and was independent of the Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court clarified that the Single Judge misunderstood the doctrine of merger and misapplied the principle of res judicata. - Conclusions: The Supreme Court's order dated 08.12.2010 is the final and binding order; the 2002 High Court judgment merged therein and does not operate independently. Issue 3: Application of the Principle of Res Judicata - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Res judicata bars re-litigation of issues already decided by a competent court. However, when a higher court modifies or supersedes a lower court's decision, the principle applies to the higher court's order. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the High Court's 2002 judgment cannot be treated as res judicata after being merged into the Supreme Court's 2010 order. The finality and binding effect rest with the Supreme Court's order. - Conclusions: The doctrine of res judicata applies to the Supreme Court's 2010 order, not to the earlier High Court judgment. Issue 4: Legality of Recovery of Excess Payments from Retired Employees - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih, which disapproved recovery of excess payments from retired employees or those due to retire within one year. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court agreed with the Single Judge's view that recovery orders against retired employees who had received higher pay scales were improper and contrary to settled principles. - Conclusions: Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is not permissible; the Single Judge's direction to set aside such recovery is affirmed. Issue 5: Delay in Filing Intra-Court Appeal and Condonation of Delay - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court noted that delay condonation requires valid grounds and that no special privilege is to be extended to the State. The principles from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal were cited. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the State after a delay of 428 days, finding no sufficient grounds for condonation. The Supreme Court observed the State's negligence but did not find it necessary to decide whether delay should be condoned. - Conclusions: The delay was inordinate and unexplained; however, the Supreme Court proceeded on the premise that even if condonation were granted, setting aside the order would not serve justice. Issue 6: Judicial Review of State Policy Decisions on Cadre Restructuring and Pay Fixation - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to settled principles that pay scale fixation and cadre restructuring are policy decisions within the State's prerogative and courts interfere only if such decisions violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the State's decision to merge posts and fix pay scales as per the Rizvi Committee's recommendations was a legitimate policy decision. The pay disparity arose due to the State's decision to revise pay scales of Headmasters without corresponding revision for SDI/ABSA and DBSA. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court found no violation of equality or arbitrariness in the State's measures. The anomaly was addressed through restructuring and pay scale revision approved by the Supreme Court. - Conclusions: Judicial interference in the policy decision was unwarranted; the State's actions were lawful and within its administrative discretion. Issue 7: Remedy and Relief to the Parties to End Protracted Litigation - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Recognizing the prolonged litigation spanning over two decades, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and bring finality. It balanced the interests of the parties, especially retired employees, and the State's financial burden. - Conclusions and Directions: The Court allowed the appeal in part, approved the 2011 Order, held the Respondents entitled to pay scale from 01.01.2006 notionally and 01.12.2008 actually, prohibited recovery of excess payments from retirees, and directed payment of arrears with interest within four months. The Court restricted the benefit to employees of the Education Department and cautioned against using this order as precedent by other departments.