2007 Supreme(SC) 1250

2007(6) Supreme 97
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
C.K. Thakker & D.K. Jain, JJ.
The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board — Petitioner
versus
C. Muddaiah — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 4108 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12608 of 2005]
Decided on : 07-09-2007

important points
A binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective or inoperative with the aid of legislative power by making a provision which, in substance and in reality, overrides and overrules a decision rendered by competent Court. Such process virtually renders a judicial decision ineffective by indirectly exercising appellate power over a judicial forum which is impermissible.
Once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. A Court order cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court.
A Court of Law may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so and in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering ‘as if he had worked’.

Headnote:(a)Binding Precedent – It is open to a competent Legislature to remove a defect in a legislation and such enactment or validating statute could not be held unconstitutional or ultra vires – It is equally well settled that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective or inoperative with the aid of legislative power by making a provision which, in substance and in reality, overrides and overrules a decision rendered by competent Court – Such process virtually renders a judicial decision ineffective by indirectly exercising appellate power over a judicial forum which is impermissible. (Para 17)

       (1995) 6 SCC 16 – Relied upon.

       (b)Service Law – Seniority – Single Judge of the High Court, on October 27, 1997, while ordering reassignment of seniority of the writ-petitioner issuing express and unequivocal direction to grant to the writ-petitioner “such other consequential benefits that he might get consequent upon the revision of ranking” – The said decision becoming final and binding – It is, therefore, not open to the appellant-Board to contend that the respondent is not entitled to such benefits under Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act,1973 and hence no such direction could have been issued by the Court. (Para 24)

       (1995) 6 SCC 16 – Relied upon.

       (c)Constitution of India – Article 226 – When the directions of the Single Judge had not been complied fully without paying arrears of salary and the Contempt petitions were wrongly dismissed holding that sufficient compliance has been made the writ petitioner was left with no alternative but to file a fresh petition. (Paras 26)

       (d)Service Law – Promotion – High Court directing to reassign seniority to writ-petitioner and give all consequential benefits – In pursuance thereof, writ-petitioner reassigned seniority and given deemed promotions to next two levels – However, authorities denying salary etc. as admissible to the promotional posts on the ground that he had not actually worked on those posts – Once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation – Decision of the Division Bench of the High Court approved. (Paras 30 and 31)

       (e)Judicial Review – If a party against whom an order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law – But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. (Para 31)

       (f)Judicial Review – When the Court directs the Authority to extend all benefits which the petitioner would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them; it is not open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked, he would not be granted the benefits – Although the normal rule is ‘no work no pay’; in appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so and in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering ‘as if he had worked’. (Para 32)

       Facts of the case :

       The respondent (writ-petitioner) joined service in Karnataka Housing Board in the year 1972. He was appointed as a Second Division Assistant and was promoted as First Division Assistant on February 15, 1972. On December 30, 1974, a seniority list of the First Division Assistants was published. The writ-petitioner challenged the said seniority list by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1992 was allowed on October 27, 1997 by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. The Court directed the Board to reassign seniority of the writ-petitioner by placing him above respondent Nos. 2 to 34 and to grant ‘other consequential benefits’. The order passed by the learned Single Judge became final.

       It is the case of the Board that the order passed by the Court was implemented and the writ-petitioner was reassigned seniority above respondent Nos. 2 to 34 as per the direction of the Court and was also granted consequential benefits. This was disputed by the writ-petitioner. The writ-petitioner retired from service on February 28, 1998.

       Since consequential benefits were not extended to him, the writ-petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 12 of 1998 which was dismissed. Similarly, another Contempt Petition No. 1134 of 1999 was also dismissed. He, thereafter, filed a substantive petition, being Writ Petition No. 10722 of 2000 contending that though an order was passed in the writ petition filed by him wherein directions were issued to reassign him seniority and consequential benefits, arrears of salary to which he was entitled, was not paid to him. The said action was clearly illegal, unlawful and not sustainable at law. A prayer was, therefore, made that the Board may be directed to extend monetary benefits as per the judgment rendered in the earlier litigation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition observing that the Division Bench disposed of Contempt Petitions observing that the Board had complied with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 1848 of 1992. According to the learned Single Judge, if it were so, the writ-petitioner could not contend that he was entitled to monetary benefits from the date he was denied seniority in the final gradation list of First Division Assistant prepared and published by the Board. The petition was, therefore, dismissed. Intra court appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench.

       Findings of the Court :

       In view of the directions in the earlier writ petition not being complied fully and arrears of salary not being paid and contempt petitions being dismissed wrongly writ petitioner was entitled to file fresh petition and the Division Bench was right in allowing the petition.

       Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.