Finality of Judgment is Absolute; State Can't Deny Salary by Citing Internal Rules After Losing in Supreme Court: Kerala High Court - 2025-03-14

Law Updates Made Simple.

State Can't Withhold Salaries Citing Internal Rules After Judgment Attains Finality, Rules Kerala High Court

ERNAKULAM: In a significant ruling emphasizing the finality of judicial pronouncements, the Kerala High Court has directed the State of Kerala to disburse pending salaries and benefits to teaching staff of an aided homeopathic college. The court held that the government cannot refuse to implement a court-mandated order, which has been upheld up to the Supreme Court, by citing an internal procedural lapse like lack of consultation with the Finance Department.

Justice P.M. Manoj, presiding over a batch of writ petitions, allowed the pleas of teaching faculties from Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College, Nemom, ending their protracted legal battle for rightful wages dating back over a decade.

Background of the Dispute

The case originates from the non-payment of salaries to the teaching staff of Shree Vidyadhiraja Homeopathic Medical College, even after the institution was brought under the government's Direct Payment System (DPS) in 2002. This led to a series of litigations.

A pivotal moment came in 2015 when the High Court, in a common judgment (referred to as Ext.P4), directed the government to sanction the staff pattern according to the Central Council for Homeopathy Regulations and release all monetary benefits. The State of Kerala challenged this decision unsuccessfully before a Division Bench and subsequently, the Supreme Court, which dismissed its Special Leave Petition in 2016.

Following this, the government issued an order in September 2016 (Ext.P5) sanctioning the staff pattern. The Kerala University of Health Sciences then formally approved the appointments of the petitioners in 2018 (Ext.P6). However, the salaries and arrears remained unpaid.

Arguments in Court

The petitioners, represented by various counsels, argued that the 2015 High Court judgment had attained finality and was binding on the State. They contended that the government was now estopped from raising new objections to deny them their dues. The only remaining step was the disbursement of salary as all required sanctions and approvals were in place, stemming from a final judicial order.

The State, primarily through the Special Government Pleader for Finance, mounted a strong opposition. The core of its argument was that the 2016 government order sanctioning the posts was void because it was issued by the AYUSH Department without the mandatory prior consultation with the Finance Department, as required by Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala. The State argued that any order with financial repercussions issued without such concurrence is invalid.

Court’s Decisive Finding on Finality of Judgment

Justice P.M. Manoj firmly rejected the State's contentions, anchoring the judgment on the well-established legal principle of finality. The court observed that the State was attempting to re-litigate an issue that had already been conclusively settled by the highest court of the land.

In a key observation, the court stated:

"The judgment in WP(C) No.18669/2006 and connected cases dated 13.03.2015 had become final... Thereby Ext.P4 judgment become final and the State cannot turn around [and] question the nature of judgment. Moreover, in compliance with the directions and on finding that Ext.P4 judgment became final, the Government issued Ext.P5 order... Thereby the Government is estopped from raising any objection in implementing Ext.P5 Government Orders."

The court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India & others v. Major S.P. Sharma & others (2014) , to underscore that finality is imperative for the rule of law and prevents endless litigation.

The court found that the Finance Department's objection, raised years after the original judgment was passed and implemented via government order, was unsustainable. The 2016 order was a consequential action in compliance with a binding judicial directive, not a fresh administrative decision requiring routine inter-departmental consultation.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed all the writ petitions filed by the teaching staff seeking disbursement of salaries and dismissed a connected petition that challenged the seniority list on procedural grounds.

The ruling serves as a strong reminder to government bodies that judicial orders, especially those that have been confirmed by the Supreme Court, must be implemented without delay. It clarifies that internal procedural rules cannot be used as a shield to evade compliance with a final court judgment, thereby safeguarding the sanctity and authority of the judicial process. The decision brings long-awaited relief to the petitioners who have been awaiting their rightful salaries for many years.