1. Pay revision and retiral benefits dispute — Challenge to orders declining benefits — Direction to pay Sixth Pay Commission benefits. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Namami Gange And Rural Water Supply Department - Petitioner
Versus
Om Prakash Singh And Others - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4900 of 2023 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4902 of 2023 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1212 of 2023 in S.L.P.(C) No.3176 of 2023 (@ S.L.P. (C) No(s).3176-3177 of 2023)
Decided On : 06-01-2025
Important Points
The court affirmed that prior orders regarding pay benefits must be complied with, and the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam does not invalidate existing obligations.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Severage (Amendment) Act, 2021
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Special Leave Petition - Impugning High Court order regarding pay revision - High Court directed payment from 01.01.2006 as per Sixth Pay Commission - Non-compliance led to contempt proceedings - The bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam into urban and rural wings raised in the petition was not permissible. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of court orders - Court emphasized the seriousness of willful disobedience and granted additional time for compliance. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order denying them pay revision benefits from 01.01.2006, which the High Court quashed, directing payment as per the Sixth Pay Commission. The State's non-compliance led to contempt applications.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition regarding the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam, reaffirming the binding nature of previous orders.
Issues: The main issue was the legitimacy of the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam and the consequent implications on compliance with earlier court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that previous orders must be complied with, and the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam did not provide grounds to challenge established rulings.
Result: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with an extension for compliance.
(B) Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of court orders - Court emphasized the seriousness of willful disobedience and granted additional time for compliance. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order denying them pay revision benefits from 01.01.2006, which the High Court quashed, directing payment as per the Sixth Pay Commission. The State's non-compliance led to contempt applications.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition regarding the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam, reaffirming the binding nature of previous orders.
Issues: The main issue was the legitimacy of the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam and the consequent implications on compliance with earlier court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that previous orders must be complied with, and the bifurcation of U.P. Jal Nigam did not provide grounds to challenge established rulings.
Result: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with an extension for compliance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Bajpayee, Adv. Mr. Md Aamir Faiyaz, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Shaifali Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pushkar Sharma, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Reji Kumar R., Adv. Mr. Ombir Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kishor Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Devansh Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Bajpayee, Adv. Mr. Md Aamir Faiyaz, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Srikant Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Ms. Shaifali Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pushkar Sharma, AOR Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Reji Kumar R., Adv. Mr. Ombir Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kishor Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr. Devansh Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that the entity was not in existence when previous orders were passed due to the subsequent bifurcation of the parent organization. (Para 7 )
3. The issue was settled in repeated petitions involving the State and the parent organization; organizational bifurcation cannot be used to re-litigate settled matters. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. A settled legal issue cannot be reopened by a successor entity created through the bifurcation of a party to the original litigation. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed — Additional time granted for compliance with previous payment directions. (Para 12 )
6. Can a successor entity challenge a settled legal issue following the bifurcation of a government organization?
No. When a legal issue has been settled through repeated petitions involving the State and the original organization, the subsequent bifurcation of that organization into separate wings does not permit the successor entity to re-litigate the settled matter. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Is a party permitted to frame a new scheme to implement court-ordered payments if specific payment directions were already issued?
No. Once the Court issues specific directions to make payments within a stipulated time, the concerned authorities are bound to comply with those directions and cannot seek further time to frame a separate scheme. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4900 of 2023 :
1. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed impugning the order1[Dated 27.02.2020] passed by the High Court2[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench] in the Writ Petition3[Service Bench No.651 of 2014] filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 45 against the Respondent Nos.46 to 51. The High Court vide Common order dated 27.02.2020 decided the three Writ Petitions4[Service Single No.11991 of 2017, Service Bench No.651 of 2014 and Service Single No.154 of 2020], however, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed only against the order passed by the High Court in Service Bench No.651 of 2014.
2. The issue raised by the writ petitioners before the High Court was for the quashing of the certain orders passed by the authorities declining them the benefit of pay revision and consequential retiral benefits from 01.01.2006 and awarding the same from 12.03.2010. The High Court while quashing the order impugned directed the respondents in the writ petition to pay benefits of the Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as was provided to the State Government employees.
3. The fact remains that the order passed by the Single Bench of the High Court dated 27.02.2020 in the petitions5[Service Single No.11991 of 2017], where Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam was a party, was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of the High Court in the Special Appeal6[Special Appeal Defective No.276 of 2020], which was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2020.
4. Still not satisfied with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, Special Leave Petition7[S.L.P.(C) No.3311 of 2022] was filed before this Court by State of Uttar Pradesh. The same was disposed by this Court on 20.05.2022. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition had directed that the amount be deposited in the GPF Account of the employees concerned within a period of six months from the date of order. On failure, the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. In case of the employees, who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation, four months’ time was granted to pay the arrears. On failure, interest was payable @ 6% per annum.
5. It would be out of place if it is not mentioned here that the Review Petition8[Review Petition (C) No.1045 of 2022] filed against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2022.
6. On account of non-compliance of the order dated 20.05.2022, some of the employees filed Contempt Application9[Contempt Application (Civil)No.1998 of 2021] before the High Court in which notice was issued to the alleged contemnors. The High Court vide interim order dated 20.12.2022 in the aforesaid Contempt Application directed the respondents therein to comply with the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by this Court. The same was challenged before this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3176-3177 of 2023. Noticing the fact that after this Court passed order on 20.05.2022, subsequent Review Petitions10[Review Petition (c) Diary No.34631 of 2022 and Review Petition (c) Diary No.34966 of 2022] having been dismissed on 29.11.2022 and 17.01.2023 respectively, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.02.2023. Four weeks further time was granted for compliance of the order. The relevant text of the order is extracted below:
“Considering the fact that the directions of which the non-compliance is alleged were issued as far as back in the month of May, 2022 and even, thereafter, the review petitions have been dismissed in the month of November, 2022/January, 2023, it is not open for the U.P. Jal Nigam and/or the State Government to pray for further six months time and come out with a scheme. Once, there are specific directions issued by this Court and the U.P. Jal Nigam/the State Government are directed to make the payment within the stipulated time and subject to modification as per our earlier orde
