1. Dispute regarding entitlement to benefits based on parity, challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 403
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. T. Nanavati, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
Versus
KAILASH, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1998 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16172 of 1997.),
decided on March 30, 1998.
Important Points
The interpretation of legal precedents and the application of previous court decisions to the current case should be based on the specific facts and should not be generalized beyond the specific circumstances of the cases.
Subject
Appellate Decision - Interpretation of Legal Precedents
Act Referred
Headnote
Legal Precedent - Interpretation of Legal Provisions in Appellate Decision - The court relied on the decision in Krishena Kumar case to set aside the order of the Tribunal, emphasizing that the decision in R. Subramaniam and Union of India v. D. R. R. Sastri were based on their own special facts and should not be interpreted as laying down a general principle.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants argued that the point raised in the appeal was covered by the decision in Krishena Kumar case and that the Tribunal was wrong in taking a contrary view based on the decision in R. Subramaniam. The respondent tried to support the Tribunal's order with the decision in Union of India v. D. R. R. Sastri.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the respondent's application.
Issues: Interpretation of legal precedents, application of previous court decisions to the current case.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision in Krishena Kumar case was relied upon to set aside the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the decisions in R. Subramaniam and Union of India v. D. R. R. Sastri were based on their own special facts and should not be interpreted as laying down a general principle.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the respondent's application.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue the issue is governed by a Constitution Bench decision, while respondents rely on parity and non-discrimination under Article 14. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that the respondent's cited precedents were decided on special facts and cannot override the ruling of a Constitution Bench. (Para 1 )
4. Granting an incorrect benefit to one person does not entitle others to the same benefit, and such denial does not violate Article 14. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal allowed, Tribunal order set aside, and respondent's application dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Does the grant of an incorrect benefit to one employee entitle similarly situated employees to the same benefit under Article 14?
No. The court held that if a wrong benefit is given to one person, similar benefit is not required to be given to others similarly situated, and denial of the same would not amount to discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of a two-judge bench decision when it conflicts with a five-judge Constitution Bench decision?
A two-judge bench would not intend to take a view contrary to what was held by a five-judge Constitution Bench. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the point raised in this appeal is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India ((1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 : (1990) 14 ATC 846) and the Tribunal was wrong in taking a contrary view relying upon the decision of this Court in R. Subramaniam v. Chief Personnel Officer, Central Rly., Ministry of Railways ((1996) 10 SCC 72 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1340 : AIR 1995 SC 983). In R. Subramaniam ((1996) 10 SCC 72 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1340 : AIR 1995 SC 983) what had happened was that benefit of the order passed in his favour was not given to him even though SLP flied by the Union of India against it was dismissed and the review application filed by it thereafter was also dismissed. R. Subramaniam therefore filed a writ petition which came to be allowed. That case was thus decided on its own facts. The Tribunal was therefore not right in deciding the respondents application in his favour by following that decision. Realising this difficulty in this way, learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the order of the Tribunal with the decision of this Court in Union of India v. D. R. R. Sastri ((1997) 1 SCC 514 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 555). That case also was decided on facts special to it. This Court refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal because the Union of India had failed to explain why the benefit, which was given to K. R. Kasturi was not given to D. R. R. Sastri even though his case was similar. Obviously the two-Judge Bench would not have intended to take a view contrary to what was held by the Constitution Bench of five Judges in Krishena Kumar case ((1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 : (1990) 14 ATC 846). Nor would it have intended to lay down that because a wrong benefit is given to one, similar benefit is required to be given to others similarly situated as denial of the same would amount to discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, D. R. R. Sastri case ((1997) 1 SCC 514 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 555) has to be regarded as a case decided on its special facts.
2. Following the decision in Krishena Kumar case ((1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112 : (1990) 14 ATC 846) we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench with the result that the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal stands dismissed.
