Judgment

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by Prahalad Singh claiming that he and other similarly placed Compositors working in the Government of India Presses all over India are entitled to the status and salary of Compositors, Grade I in the ",highly skilled" category with effect from January 1, 1966. The said relief is claimed on the sole ground that one T. R. Thakur has already been given Grade I in the "highly skilled" category as a result of the judgement in his favour given by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The Writ, Petition (C.W. 62/69) filed by T. R. Thakur was allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court on May 21, 1971 (reported in 1971 Lab IC 1218) and Letters Patent Appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on, May 9, 1979. The High Court hold that the Categorisation as "highly skilled" and "skilled" on the basis of seniority alone was unreasonable and discriminatory. No special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court was brought to this Court and as such the judgment has become final.

2. Prahalad Singh and others have claimed that they are entitled to the benefit of the judgment given by the High Court in Thakurs case. According to them said judgment is applicable in principle to all the compositors whether they were parties before the High Court or not. This petition came for hearing before a Bench of this Court consisting of R. S. Pathak, CJI, M. N. Venkatachalia, J. The Bench in its order dated April 28, 1989 (reported in AIR 1989 SC 1563, para 1) observed as under:-

"The principal objection to the grant of relief to the petitioner and those for whom he claims to act is the gross delay with which the writ petition appears to have been brought in this, Court. To surmount that difficulty the petitioner relies upon the plea that the judgment of the High Court in T. R. Thakurs case (1971 Lab IC 1218) is a judgment operative in principle in favour of all Compositors situated in the circumstances in which T. R. Thakur found himself. There are other pleas which have been taken by the petitioner, but the substantial one is whether he and the other Compositors can enforce in their favour the benefit granted in T . R. Thakurs case although they were not parties to that proceeding. At first blush it would seem that the High Court considered the particular facts of T. R. Thakur, the petitioner before it, and while granting relief it appears, in terms, to have confined it to T. R. Thakur. It is an important point whether, as the petitioner now contends before us, the direction issued by the High Court can be regarded as a direction operative in respect of all compositors employed in the Government of India Presses all over India. The point is important since the objection on the plea of laches seems to be a substantial one in view of. the several Compositors who have over the years been promoted to the category of "highly skilled" Compositors, and interfering with their status now could materially prejudice them. At the same time, it cannot be doubted that there can be cases where although the facts of a particular petitioner have been taken into consideration what the Court intends, when it adjudicates on the claim, is to lay down the law to be applied by the respondents to all similar situations. There are other cases where relief may be granted or refused upon the consideration of a question involved -- the question being one which affects several persons of the category to which the petitioner belongs - and the grant or refusal of the relief may turn on the particular facts of that case. Various possible categories of cases can be conceived in this context. We think it desirable that in cases such as this the Court should formulate a set of appropriate guidelines indicating when directions rendered by the Court in one particular case can be regarded as operative in other cases. As the matter will be governed both by principle and by the prac