Consistency in applying previous court orders and principles, entitlement to benefits subject to conditions and limitations

Headnote:
Leave granted - Appellants similarly situated as in previous order - 12% increase to be granted cumulatively from 2000 - No cut - Statutory benefits not entitled for delay
Fact of the Case:

The appellants claimed to be similarly situated as those covered by a previous court order, seeking a 12% increase to be granted cumulatively from the year 2000 with no cut. The court allowed the appeals to the extent of granting the same directions as in the previous order, but clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to statutory benefits for the period covered by the delay.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the appeals to the extent of granting the same directions as in the previous order, but clarified that the appellants would not be entitled to statutory benefits for the period covered by the delay.
Issues: Appellants claiming similar treatment as in previous court order, entitlement to 12% increase from 2000, and statutory benefits for delay
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the previous order, which granted a 12% increase cumulatively from 2000 with no cut, and the court extended the same directions to the present appeals. However, the court clarified that statutory benefits would not be granted for the period covered by the delay.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed to the extent that the directions granted in the previous order would hold good for the present appeals, but the appellants would not be entitled to statutory benefits for the period covered by the delay.

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. It is the undisputed case of the appellants that they are similarly situated as the appellants covered by the order of this Court dated 17.11.2016 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.11005-11042 of 2016 titled Piyara Singh and Another Etc., v. State of Haryana & Ors. Etc., wherein this Court has taken a view that the 12% increase is to be granted cumulatively from the year 2000 itself and that there should be no cut.

3. The same judgment will apply in the case of the appellants as well.

4. The appeals are allowed to the above extent and the directions granted in the order referred to above shall hold good for these appeals also.

5. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled to any statutory benefits for the period covered by the delay.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 120

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAKURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.BUDH RAM AND ORS. – APPELLANTSVERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTSCIVIL APPEAL NO.1036 OF 2017 [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36446/2016] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1037/2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36447/2016Decided On : 27-01-2017

Consistency in applying previous court orders and principles, entitlement to benefits subject to conditions and limitations