1. Pensionary benefits — Repeal of pension scheme — Challenge to denial of benefits and prior Supreme Court judgment upholding the repeal. (Para 2 , 11 , 14 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 637
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 179 of 2018
Decided On : 16-04-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court upheld the repeal of the pension scheme, affirming the State's authority to set a cut-off date for pension eligibility and the binding nature of prior judgments.
Subject
Pension Law - Public Sector Employees
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 - Petitioners, retired employees of the Corporation, sought pensionary benefits under the 1999 Scheme, which was repealed by notification dated 02.12.2004 - The Supreme Court upheld the repeal, affirming the State's authority to set a cut-off date for pension eligibility, and ruled that the petitioners' claims were barred by the previous judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood (2016) 10 SCC 77. (Paras 2, 16, 30)
(B) Vested Rights - The court reiterated that pensionary rights under the 1999 Scheme were contingent and could be altered by the State based on financial viability. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Judicial Finality - The court emphasized that a decision rendered by the Supreme Court cannot be collaterally challenged in a writ petition under Article 32. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, retired officers of the Corporation, challenged the denial of pensionary benefits under the 1999 Scheme, which was repealed after a High-Level Committee deemed it financially unviable.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the repeal notification and the cut-off date for pension eligibility.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the repeal of the 1999 Scheme and the binding nature of the previous judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State had the authority to repeal the pension scheme based on financial considerations and that the petitioners could not challenge the binding precedent set by Rajesh Chander Sood.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Vested Rights - The court reiterated that pensionary rights under the 1999 Scheme were contingent and could be altered by the State based on financial viability. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Judicial Finality - The court emphasized that a decision rendered by the Supreme Court cannot be collaterally challenged in a writ petition under Article 32. (Paras 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, retired officers of the Corporation, challenged the denial of pensionary benefits under the 1999 Scheme, which was repealed after a High-Level Committee deemed it financially unviable.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the legality of the repeal notification and the cut-off date for pension eligibility.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the repeal of the 1999 Scheme and the binding nature of the previous judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State had the authority to repeal the pension scheme based on financial considerations and that the petitioners could not challenge the binding precedent set by Rajesh Chander Sood.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr.Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Varma, AOR Ms. Adyasha Nanda, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr.Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR Ms. Shalya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim the prior judgment is per incuriam and violates Article 14; State contends the petition is a collateral challenge to a binding Supreme Court decision. (Para 17 , 18 )
3. The court found the prior judgment was not per incuriam and emphasized that Supreme Court decisions cannot be collaterally challenged through writ petitions under Article 32. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. A judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32; the appropriate remedies are review or curative petitions. (Para 29 , 30 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 32 )
6. Can a Supreme Court judgment be challenged via a writ petition under Article 32?
No. A decision rendered by the Supreme Court, whether in a special leave petition or a civil appeal, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Article 32. The only available remedies are filing for a review or, if the grievance persists, invoking curative jurisdiction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
7. What constitutes a judgment rendered 'per incuriam'?
A judgment is per incuriam if it ignores binding precedents. A judgment providing elaborate reasons and not ignoring binding precedents cannot be termed per incuriam simply because the parties disagree with the reasoning. (Para 22 )
8. What is the legal standing of the principle of finality in adjudication?
Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation that has reached finality cannot be reopened through writ proceedings to prevent chaos in the administration of justice and ensure an end to litigation. (Para 30 , 31 )
9. Is a cut-off date for pensionary benefits necessarily arbitrary under Article 14?
No. The State can legitimately prescribe a cut-off date for extending pensionary benefits based on financial health and available resources, provided the classification is reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is a petition filed by three petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are retired officers of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited (briefly ‘the Corporation’ hereinafter). They are aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits to them in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 discontinued vide the notification dated 02.12.2004, which though carved out an exception for those who had opted for the scheme and had superannuated prior to 02.12.2004. Hence, they seek a direction to the respondents for payment of pension to them upon their superannuation in terms of the said scheme at par with similarly situated employees who had retired prior to 02.12.2004, by counting their pensionable service from the date of joining till the date of their superannuation.
3. This issue was earlier raised by a group of petitioners before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (‘High Court’ hereinafter) by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the lead case being P.D. Nanda Vs. State of H.P. , 2013 SCC Online HP 5151, CWP No. 4425 of 2009. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions vide the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 by directing the State to provide pension to the retired employees of the Corporation in terms of the aforesaid scheme. This decision was reversed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77.
4. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court seeking the same relief. Various contentions have been raised including the one that the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) has ignored several binding precedents of this Court and is, therefore, a decision rendered per incuriam.
5. This Court issued notice vide the order dated 20.03.2018. In the said order, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, after observing that since correctness of this Court’s judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) has been questioned, requested the learned Chief Justice to place the matter before a three-Judge Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before the present Bench and heard accordingly.
6. Though learned senior counsel for the respondent- State has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the present writ petition, we are of the view that such an objection may be considered while considering the stand of the respondents.
7. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant facts.
8. The Corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a notification dated 26.03.1974 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is completely owned and controlled by the State Government inasmuch as 100% of the share capital of the Corporation is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
9. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Clerk in the Corporation on 29.10.1975. On 27.03.1981, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant(Senior Accountant) on 07.11.1984. He was promoted to the post of Office Manager(Junior) on 03.04.1989 and, thereafter, to the post of Office Manager (Senior) on 17.11.2011. Petitioner No. 1 superannuated from service on 31.01.2013.
9.1. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Clerk in the Corporation on 15.02.1988. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 15.02.1993 and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant on 01.01.1996. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 07.09.2009 whereafter he was promoted to the post of Office Manager (Junior) from which post he superannuated on 30.09.2016.
9.2. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed to the post of Clerk in the Corporation on 05.12.1981. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 24.05.1985 and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant on 25.04.1992. He was furthe
