2006 Supreme(SC) 1106

2006(9) Supreme 31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
State of Haryana & Ors. - Appellants
versus
M.P. Mohla - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4772 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12389 of 2004)
Decided on 10-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, Ajay Siwach and T.V. George, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prabhjit Jauhar and S.S. Jauhar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW - Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 - Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 - Fixation of pay scales - Respondent was appointed as Veterinary Surgeon in the cadre of Haryana Veterinary Service - He was promoted to the post of Assistant Director-cum-Sub Divisional Officer - In year 1986, he was granted a pay scale of Rs. 2375-3600 - State implemented grant of Selection Grade Scale in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which was revised to Rs. 2200-4000 and Selection Grade Scale of Rs. 4100-5300 to 20% of the posts of Veterinary Surgeons who had completed 12 years of service - Respondent was placed in the said pay scale by an order dated 20-9-1993 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1992 - However, an intermediary senior scale of Rs. 3000-4500 was introduced which became applicable upon completion of five years of regular service - Respondent being entitled thereto was promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 - On enforcement of Revised Rules of 1998, pay scales of posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director were revised from Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 3000-5000 to Rs. 10,000-13900 and Rs. 10,000-15200 respectively - On enforcement of the ACP Rules, pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 4100-5300 were revised respectively to Rs. 10,000-13900 and Rs. 12000 - 375-16500 w.e.f. 1-1-1996 - In terms of ACP Rules, pay of respondent was fixed at Rs. 12000-16500 - Pay of respondent was fixed in pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 by an order dated 12-10-1998 - A certificate of higher responsibility was also issued to him - However, his claim of promotional increment in the revised scale was rejected - Writ petition filed by respondent claiming the relief which was allowed - Respondent submitted that ACP Rules which were issued in 1998 with retrospective effect from 1996 have no application in the instant case - It was admitted that respondent’s pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 13500-17250 at the Directorate level - Respondent filed a contempt petition claiming a higher scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 14300-18300 wherein appellants filed their reply stating that order of the High Court had been complied with - Whether appeal filed is maintainable - (No).

       Held : A Special Leave Petition filed by Appellants thereagainst was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10.8.2001. In the meanwhile Respondent filed a Contempt Petition claiming a higher scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 14300-18300 wherein Appellants filed their reply stating that the order of the High Court had been complied with. It is not in dispute that the question as regards purported anomaly in the applicability of the Revised Rules and the ACP Rules had not been determined by the court.(Para 8)

       A review application was filed before the High Court despite dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court seeking purported clarifications in the matter of the applicability of the Rules. It was contended that the purported admission made was on a wrong reading of the provisions of the Rules. It was further contended that Respondent is governed by the ACP Rules and not the Revised Rules. (Para 11)

       We, as at present advised, do not intend to go into the question as to whether the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules will apply in the case of Respondent. The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however, cannot be denied or disputed that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. If a specific question which was not raised and which had not been decided by the High Court the same would not debar a party to agitate the same at an appropriate stage, subject, of course, to the applicability of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata.(Para 21)

       It is also trite that if a subsequent cause of action had arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action has arisen.(Para 22)

       If the ACP Rules were applicable in the case of Respondent, it was the duty of Appellants to bring it to the notice of the High Court and ask for adjudication on the said question. But the effective order passed as against it could not have been sought to be nullified by raising a question which had not been raised in the writ petition. There might not have been an adjudication on a question which was relevant for determination of the issue directly or indirectly but in a case of this nature such a contention could not have been entertained in a review proceeding which would have the effect of taking away the benefit granted by a court upon adjudication.(Para 28)

       In this case the purported subsequent event is the filing of the contempt petition. Appellants specific stand in the contempt petition is that the order of the court stood complied with. If the order of the court stood complied with, there was no subsequent event which was necessary to be taken into consideration. Filing of an application under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 itself cannot be a ground to deny the benefit under a judgment. It is one thing to state that the judgment of the court has been implemented, but it is another think that the effect of the judgment is not that what was being contended by Respondent. It is in that sense, this Court times without number has laid down the law that such subsequent events may give rise to a fresh cause of action. (Para 31)

       Submission of Mr. Jauhar, however, is that if a review petition is permitted to be filed and allowed, the same would nullify the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition filed by Appellants. This may be so but we are of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case it is not necessary for us to make an endeavour to reopen a binding precedent particularly when no such action arises therefor.(Para 33)

       (ii) Constitution of India - Articles 32, 226 - Writ Petition - It may not be open to a party to the lis to ask for a clarification contrary to or inconsistent with its stand taken by it in the writ proceedings - An application for clarification cannot be taken recourse to achieve the result of a review application.(Paras 27 & 29)

       (iii) Constitution of India - Articles 32, 226 - Writ petition - If a subsequent cause of action had arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action had arisen.(Para 22)

       (iv) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment - A judgment as is well known must be read in its entirety - However, what would be the effect of a judgment must be considered from the reliefs claimed in the writ petition as also the implication thereof.

       Held : A judgment as is well-known must be read in its entirety. The judgment of a court must also be implemented. But what would be the effect of a judgment must be considered from the reliefs claimed in the writ petition as also the implications thereof which has to be deciphered from reading the entire judgment. A judgment may also have to be read on the touchstone of pleadings of the parties.(Para 19)

       (v) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 18 - Admissions - Effect of - A party may not be permitted to resile from his admission at a subsequent stage of the same proceeding - It is also trite that an admission made contrary to law shall not be binding on the State.(Para 24)