1. Dispute concerning the implementation of legislation on consequential seniority and a subsequent government order affecting promotions and demotions during pending litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1745
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
B.k. Pavitra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 1151 of 2018, 1152 of 2018; Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011, 2369 of 2011; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 764 of 2018, 769 of 2018, 791 of 2018, 823 of 2018, 827 of 2018, 850 of 2018, 875 of 2018, 872 of 2018, 901 of 2018, 879 of 2018, 1209 of 2018; Interlocutory Application No. 36981 of 2019, 88163 of 2018, 90623 of 2018, 97808 of 2018, 88278 of 018, 90624 of 2018, 94270 of 2018, 94669 of 2018, 98464 of 2018, 101719 of 2018, 101721 of 2018
Decided On : 01-03-2019
Advocates Appeared:
Rajeev Dhavan, Adv., Kumar Parimal, Adv., Smarhar Singh, Adv., Siddhi Padia, Adv., Basava Prabhu Patil, Adv., Devadatt Kamat, Adv., V.N. Raghupathy, Adv., Rachitha Herimath, Adv., Chinmay Deshpande, Adv., Parikshit P Angadi, Adv., Indira Jaising, Adv., Anuj Saxena, Adv., Prakash Sharma, Adv., Prakrati Raj, Adv., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv., V. Lakshminarayana, Adv., Dinesh K Garg, Adv., Abhishek Garg, Adv., Dhananjay Garg, Adv., Deepak Mishra, Adv., Puneet Jain, Adv., Christi Jain, Adv., Harsh Jain, Adv., Abhinav Deshwal, Adv., K.S. Chauhan, Adv., Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv., Ravi Prakash, Adv., Chand Kiran, Adv., S.P. Singh, Adv., Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv., Dharm Singh, Adv., Nanda Kumar K B, Adv., Suraj Kaushik, Adv., Sarbendra Kumar, Adv., Mohd Naved, Adv., Nehmat Kaur, Adv., Joseph Aristotle S, Adv., Priya Aristotle, Adv., Shiva P, Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Adv., Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv., B.V. Balaram Das, Adv., S.K. Kulkarni, Adv., M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv., Ankur S Kulkarni, Adv., Shirish K Deshpande, Adv., Sharan G Patil, Adv., Mohit Gautam, Adv., Naveen R Nath, Adv., Rahul Jain, Adv., Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., B.V. Balram Das, Adv., Devasa & Co, Adv., Satpal Singh, Adv., S.N. Bhat, Adv., Pulkit Tare, Adv., Anagha S Desai, Adv., E.C. Vidya Sagar, Adv., Vipin Gupta, Adv., Sudhir Nagar, Adv., Kabir Dixit, Adv.
Rajeev Dhavan, Adv., Kumar Parimal, Adv., Smarhar Singh, Adv., Siddhi Padia, Adv., Basava Prabhu Patil, Adv., Devadatt Kamat, Adv., V.N. Raghupathy, Adv., Rachitha Herimath, Adv., Chinmay Deshpande, Adv., Parikshit P Angadi, Adv., Indira Jaising, Adv., Anuj Saxena, Adv., Prakash Sharma, Adv., Prakrati Raj, Adv., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv., V. Lakshminarayana, Adv., Dinesh K Garg, Adv., Abhishek Garg, Adv., Dhananjay Garg, Adv., Deepak Mishra, Adv., Puneet Jain, Adv., Christi Jain, Adv., Harsh Jain, Adv., Abhinav Deshwal, Adv., K.S. Chauhan, Adv., Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv., Ravi Prakash, Adv., Chand Kiran, Adv., S.P. Singh, Adv., Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv., Dharm Singh, Adv., Nanda Kumar K B, Adv., Suraj Kaushik, Adv., Sarbendra Kumar, Adv., Mohd Naved, Adv., Nehmat Kaur, Adv., Joseph Aristotle S, Adv., Priya Aristotle, Adv., Shiva P, Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Adv., Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv., B.V. Balaram Das, Adv., S.K. Kulkarni, Adv., M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv., Ankur S Kulkarni, Adv., Shirish K Deshpande, Adv., Sharan G Patil, Adv., Mohit Gautam, Adv., Naveen R Nath, Adv., Rahul Jain, Adv., Siddharth Agarwal, Adv., B.V. Balram Das, Adv., Devasa & Co, Adv., Satpal Singh, Adv., S.N. Bhat, Adv., Pulkit Tare, Adv., Anagha S Desai, Adv., E.C. Vidya Sagar, Adv., Vipin Gupta, Adv., Sudhir Nagar, Adv., Kabir Dixit, Adv.
The court has the discretion to grant a stay on the operation and implementation of a government order pending final decision, especially when the matter is in the concluding stages.
Headnote:
Contempt - Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation - Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017 - [B.K. Pavitra & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2017 4 SCC 620; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Another v. Broach Borough Municipality & Others, 1969 2 SCC 283; Madan Mohan Pathak & Another v. Union of India & Others, 1978 2 SCC 50; Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others, 2018 11 Scale 510] - The court discussed the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation Act, 2017 and its impact on the directions issued in the B.K. Pavitra case. The court considered the arguments regarding the legislation's intent to nullify the effect of the judgment and the principles established in previous cases. The court ultimately granted a stay on the operation and implementation of a government order, pending final decision.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered contempt petitions filed after the directions issued in the B.K. Pavitra case were allegedly not followed. The State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation Act, 2017, which was challenged in independent writ petitions. The court was urged to maintain status quo pending final decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted a stay on the operation and implementation of the G.O. No.DPAR 186 SRS 2018, Bengaluru dated 27.02.2019, considering the matter to be in the concluding stages and pending final decision.
Issues: Validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation Act, 2017 and its impact on the directions issued in the B.K. Pavitra case; Whether to maintain status quo pending final decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it appropriate to grant a stay on the government order, considering the matter to be in the concluding stages and pending final decision.
Final Decision: The court granted a stay on the operation and implementation of the G.O. No.DPAR 186 SRS 2018, Bengaluru dated 27.02.2019, and listed the matters for further hearing on 06.03.2019 at 2.00 p.m.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Applicants seek stay of government order to maintain status quo — State contends the order is protective and staying it effectively stays the underlying legislation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Proceedings are in the concluding stages, making it inappropriate to alter the existing status quo shortly before the final decision is rendered. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Status quo should be maintained when proceedings are in the concluding stages to prevent alteration of the position pending a final decision. (Para 14 )
5. Stay granted on the operation and implementation of the government order. (Para 14 )
6. Can a government order be stayed when the main matter is in the concluding stages of litigation?
Yes, if the matter is in the concluding stages and a final decision is imminent, the court may grant a stay to ensure the status quo is not altered. (Para 14 )
7. Does a government order that is explicitly subject to the final outcome of a court case preclude the need for a stay?
While the State may argue that making an order subject to the court's final decision provides sufficient protection, the court may still grant a stay to maintain the status quo if the proceedings are nearly complete. (Para 8 , 14 )
8. Is the general rule that legislation is not stayed applicable to government orders implementing such legislation?
Although it is argued that staying a government order effectively stays the operation of the underlying legislation, the court may prioritize maintaining the status quo when the case is in its final stages. (Para 10 , 14 )
ORDER
1. Ia No.36981/2019 in W.P.(C) No.764/2018
On 12.10.2018, following order was passed by this Court:
"1. After the judgment was rendered by this Court in B.K. Pavitra & Others v. Union of India & Others , (2017) 4 SCC 620, contempt petitions were filed submitting inter alia that the directions issued in the judgment were not followed. Those contempt petitions were disposed of by order dated 20.03.2018 making certain observations.
2. According to the contempt petitioners, the directions issued by this Court were still not being followed in its entirety and as such they had prayed for consequential reliefs by filing Miscellaneous Applications.
3. The Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017 came into force on 23.06.2018.
4. On 28.6.2018, stand was taken by the State in affidavit filed in this Court that with the above enactment, the basis or the foundation of the judgment stood taken away. Later, independent writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the aforesaid legislation which are still pending consideration by this Court.
5. While the matters were under consideration, learned Advocate General for the State of Karnataka appeared before this Court on 27.7.2018. During the course of hearing, it was suggested by the Court that pending consideration by this Court, status-quo may not be altered, which suggestion the learned Advocate General orally agreed and accepted.
6. It must be put on record that a decision has since than been rendered by this Court in Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others reported in,2018 11 Scale 510.
7. Today, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi learned Senior Counsel appearing for State of Karnataka submitted that since there is a legislation passed by the Karnataka Legislature, and, secondly, in view of the decision of this Court in Jarnail Singh (supra), the State would no longer go by the oral assurance of the learned Advocate General and must not be bound to the assurance given by the learned Advocate General on the earlier occasion. The stand taken by Mr. Rohatgi is supported by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Ms. Indira Jaising and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil.
8. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan and Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the other side however submitted that the intent of the Legislation was only to nullify the effect of the judgment and, as such, going by the decisions of this Court starting from Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Another v. Broach Borough Municipality & Others , (1969) 2 SCC 283, and, Madan Mohan Pathak & Another v. Union of India & Others , (1978) 2 SCC 50, it was not open to render the judgment of this Court ineffective, without taking away the basis or foundation of the judgment which was not so done in the present matter.
9. Since the matters are of urgent nature, we deem it appropriate to list these matters for final hearing on 23.10.2018. We must record that the pleadings stand exchanged between the parties and matters are ripe for consideration."
2. In para 5, the order referred to the statement made by the learned Advocate General for State of Karnataka during the course of hearing on 27.07.2018. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka, with reference to Demi Official Letter No.1068/AGB/2018- 1 dated 30.07.2018 of the Advocate General, issued Circular dated 03.08.2018 stating as under:
"(3) Various Writ Petitions are registered in the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning the above Act (Act No.21 of 2018) and these cases have been tagged with pending M.A. No.1151/2018 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with B.K. Pavitra case, came to be heard on 27.07.2018 and as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to maintain Status Quo till further orders, the Hon'ble Advocate General has advised the Government to maintain Status Quo till further orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hence, it is directed to all the
