Holding

A miscellaneous application seeking clarification and implementation of a final order does not constitute a fresh cause of action and is maintainable.

Summary

The appellants, former Vayudoot employees absorbed into Indian Airlines, were directed by a High Court Single Judge to be placed in a post of equivalent pay scale after failing to obtain a pilot licence. The airline placed them in a lower scale, prompting the appellants to file a miscellaneous application seeking clarification and enforcement of the earlier order. The Division Bench of the High Court held the application non‑maintainable, treating it as a fresh cause of action, and set aside the Single Judge's direction. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the application merely sought clarification of a final order and thus was maintainable under Article 226. The Supreme Court held that a miscellaneous application for clarification and implementation of a final order does not constitute a fresh cause of action and is permissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and restored the Single Judge’s directions, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a miscellaneous application filed after the final disposal of a writ petition, seeking implementation of the order, amounts to a fresh cause of action and is maintainable.
Whether a party may seek clarification of a final order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court Division Bench erred in holding the miscellaneous application non‑maintainable.

Subjects

maintainabilitymiscellaneous applicationclarification of orderfinality of judgmentservice lawpay protectionpublic sector undertaking mergerwrit petitionArticle 226

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 780

A . K.A. ANSARI & ANR. -t;· .~

v.
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2008)

NOVEMBER 28, 2008
8
[D.K. JAIN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
"<

Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous application, in
finally disposed of writ petition - Maintainability of - Direction
c of court in a writ petition to post employees in equivalent scale
- Non-implementation of order by the employer- Employee's
application seeking clarification of the order - Held: It is not
open to court to reopen a proceeding in finally disposed of
writ petition in respect of matter having fresh cause of action
D But it is permissible for a party to seek clarification of final
-
order - The application in the instant case was for seeking
clarification of final order and was not having any fresh cause
of action - Hence, maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950
,.... Article 226 - Service Law - Pay. f '
E
After merger of a Public Sector Undertaking, of
which the appellants were employees, with respondent-
'Airlines, the employees of the Undertaking were observed
in the respondent-Airlines in Short Hand Operation
Department (SHOD). The absorbed employees demanded
F integration with the existing employees of the
respondent-Airlines. The same was opposed by the '!--
existing employees of the respondent-Airlines. In the
meetings it.was decided that the absorbed employees
were required to complete their training and obtain
G licence to fly the respondent-Airlines Aircraft in .t~ree
attempts. Appellants were informed that since they failed ~
,.;..
in two attempts, their training was being terminated and r
they would revert to SHOD. They were later required to
appear for an interview for selection to the post of
H 780

,,,
_, '
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 781

,. + Assistant Manager (Flight Safety). A

Appellants questioned the same, by filing a writ
petition on the ground that they were entitled to three
chances for obtaining licence In the alternative they had
a right to be automatically placed in the equivalent
ground job post with protection of pay and allowances. a
Despite the filing of writ petition, appellants joined the
post of Asstt. Manager (Flight Safety) offered to them in
terms of letter dated April 23, 2003. Single Judge of High
Court disposed of the petition inter a/ia holding that the
appellants were entitled to a post in an equivalent scale. c
One of the appellants, on the basis of the order of High
Court, requested the respondent-Airlines to post him in
equivalent scale. Respondent-Airlines informed him that
he had been placed in proper scale an~ his basic pay was
duly protected. D
Appellants filed miscellaneous application seeking a
> direction to the respondent, to place him in a ground job
+ in equivalent pay scale. He stated that he had been asked
to join in the pay scale of Rs.5675-8025 while on the date E,
he was offered the post on ground duty, he was in the
pay scale of Rs.6200-8025. Single Judge disposed of the
application with the direction to absorb the appellants in
the pay scale of Rs.6200-8025 and if such scale was not
available in ground duty, they were to be placed in the
next higher grade. Intra-Court appeal by the respondent F
was allowed. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek
a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of G
.........
-
rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. When· the
proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ
-1
petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the
proceedings by means of miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion
and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease
to have any meaning. At the same time, there is no
prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the
order is not clear and the party against whom it has been
B m~de is trying to take advantage because the order is
couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. (Para 16]
(790-C-E]

1.2. Keeping in view the terms of final order passed
by Single Judge of High Court, the miscellaneous
C application could not be said to be founded on a separate
or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of the legal
position viz. on termination of proceedings by final
disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the court to
reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous
D application in respect of a matter which provided fresh
cause of action. It was an application filed for pursuing
and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ
petition, namely, placement in appropriate grade in which +
he was placed at the time when letter dated 23rd April,
E 2003, was issued. It is manifest that in direction No. (ii),
the Single Judge had clearly directed that the writ
petitioners would be entitled 'to be posted to .a post in
equivalent scale held by them when the letter dated 23rd
April, 2003 was.issued.' The respondent was obliged to
F obey and implement the said direction. If they had any
doubt or if the order was not clear, it was always open to
them to approach the court for clarification of the said
order. Without challenging the said direction or seeking
clarification, the respondent could not circumvent the
·G same on any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in
implementation of an order passed by the Court,
howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer for its
.
..
-"':
-

non-implementation. Division Bench was in error in
holding that after the disposal of the writ petitions,
H miscellaneous application was not maintainable and the
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 783

, ~ only remedy available to the appellant was to approach A
the authoritie!i and if his interpretation was not
acceptable to them, then he could file a fresh writ petition.
In the miscellaneous application, no fresh relief, on the
. basis of a new cause of action, ·had been sought. [Para
18] [790-G; 791-A-F] B

.. , State of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr.
(1987) 2 SCC 179, Referred to
Case Law Reference:
c
(1987) 2 sec 119 Referred to Para 16

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
'
6903 of 2008.

From the final Judgment dated 21.11.2005 of the High D
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A No. 1135 and 1136 of
2005.
~
~· Nisha Bagchi and Meenakshi Arora for the Appellants.

RS. Suri for the.Respondent. E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave.granted.

2. This appeal is directed against two common orders, F
dated 21st November, 2005, passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in LP.A Nos. 1135 and 1136 of 2005. By the
impugned orders, the High Court has allowed the appeals,
preferred by the Indian Airlines Limited, the sole respondent in
this appeal, against the order passed by a learned Single G
... Judge of the High Court in the miscellaneous application filed
-
•
--+
by the first appellant herein, seeking clarification of the final
judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge· on 11th
October, 2004. The Division Bench has held that after disposal
of the writ petitions, miscellaneous application was not H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A maintainable and, hence order dated 4th March, 2005 on the + ~

said application was without jurisdiction.

3. In order fo appreciate the controversy, it would be
necessary to recapitulate the background facts, stated in detail
by the learned Single Judge. These are as follows:
B
The appellants were appointed as Field Officers by the ~

Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of
t
Agricultural Aviation in the years 1978 and 1979. On 24th July,
1987, they were transferred under the administrative control of
c the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Mis Vayudoot Limited (for short
'Vayudoot'), a public sector undertaking, was incorporated in
the year 1981. In the year 1988, the assets of the Directorate
' .
of Agricultural Aviation were transferred to Vayudoot. As a
result thereof, the services of the officers of Directorate of Civil
D Aviation were placed at the disposal of Vayudoot, on
deputation. The deputation was on same terms and conditions
including pay and allowances as were being received by the
appellants under the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
-f '
4. On 8th April, 1988, posts of the appellants were re-
E •
designated as Operation Officers. Again on 9th May, 1989, the
designation of the appellants was changed to Assistant
Manager. Appellant No. 1 - K.P.S. Rathore, was selected as a
trainee pilot on 1st January, 1989 and was confirmed as such
with effect from 1st November, 1990. Appellant No. 2 - K.A.
F Ansari, was appointed as a junior pilot on 1st July, 1990 and
was confirmed as such with effect from 1st October, 1990. .,I..

5. It appears that in the year 1993, the Government of India
took a policy deC:ision to merge Vayudoot with Indian Airlines.
G On 24th May, 1994, Ministry ofCivil Aviation issued an order
conveying the decision of the Government that the process of ...,.
~

absorption of the Vayudoot employees shall commence by 31st y
June, 1994 with certain relaxations/benefits to them on joining
the new organisation. The benefits included protection of basic
H pay drawn by the employees of Vayudoot at the time of their
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 785
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

; absorption in lr1dian Airlines. A
t

6. ·it seems that the employees of Vayudoot, who were
absorbed in the Indian Airlines in a separately created 'Short
Haul Operations Department', referred to as 'SHOD' by the
learned Single Judge, demanded integration with the existing, B
employees of Indian Airlines. They claimed that they had a right
to be promoted to the next corresponding post with the existing '
\ employees of Indian Airlines by including the service rendered

' by them under Vayudoot. As expected, the integration was
opposed by the existing employees of the Indian Airlines.
c
Negotiations were held and in the meeting held on 10th March,
1988, one of the decisions' taken was as under:
~

"PILOT

1. SHOD pilots will undergo training in IA aircraft and on D
getting type endorsement will be placed at the bottom of
the seniority of First Officers (Co-Pilots). However, their
.~ past services will be counted for the purpose of pay
1 protection and other financial benefit. Their future growth
will be on the basis of the line of seniority. The IA will take
E
necessary action to initiate their training within a period of
one month.

2. Pilots who fail to obtain licence endorsement as per IA
rules will be retained in SHOD. Such pilots may be
provided appropriate ground job. Their basic pay and F
allowances in such cases will be protected. The proposal
is based on the basis of the policy adopted by the
company while phasing out turboprop aircraft in 1982.

3. Four executive Pilot will remain in SHOD and will be 'G
sent on deputation to Alliance Air. After acquiring training
~
'
_., and getting Being endorsement they will be appointed as
.., Co-Pilots. Their pay and allowances and status will be
protected."
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
l
A 7. Thereafter, some more decisions were taken, with which t ·~

we are not directly concerned in this appeal except to note that
in order to find an amicable solution to the demands/grievances
of the employees of Indian Airlines and SHOD, in the meetings
held on 21st April, 1998 and 16th Ma'rch, 2000, it was decided
s that the SHOD employees will have to complete their training
and obtain the licence to fly an Indian Airlines' aircraft in three
attempts. Accordingly, vide communication dated 6th
September, 2001 the appellants were informed that since they /
.
..,.. '
had failed in two attempts, their training was being terminated
c and they would revert to SHOD with immediate effect. The \

appellants protested, inter alia, on the ground that they were r
entitled to three opportunities, instead of two, to obtain the
requisite .licence. However, on 15th November, 2002, the
appellants were directed to appear for an interview for selection
to the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Safety). The said action
0
on the part of the Indian Airlines was questioned by the
appellants by preferring writ petitions in the High Court. Their
plea was that as per the agreed arrangement, they had to be ~i
given three chances to obtain the licence endorsement and in +
E the alternative they had a· right to be automatically inducted in
a ground job post of equivalent status with protection of pay and
allowances. Notwithstanding the filing of the writ petitions, the
appellants joined on the post of Assistant Manager (Flight
Safety), offered to them in terms of the letter issued by the ~

respondent on ~3rd April, 2003, which contained the following L I

F note:

"Please note that you are. being given this last and final,
opportunity to accept our offer of appointment as Asstt.
Manager (Flight Safety) with protection of basic pay. If you
G fail to report for Medical Examination by the stipulated date
as mentioned above, it will be presumed that you are not
interested in the alternate employment as a rehabilitation
measure offered by the Management and the
Management would be constrained to terminate your
H services."
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 787
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

~
_. 8. Be that as it may, ultimately the writ petitions preferred A
by the appellants were disposed of by the learned Single
Judge on 11th October, 2004 in the following terms:

"Petitioners on failing 3 tests are undoubtedly entitled to
be automatically placed for a ground job with benefit of
B
past service. This grounding cannot be at a post lower in
the scale held by the petitioners. Since no material has
been placed to show what was the scale of post of
' Assistant Manager (Flight Safety), writ petitions are
disposed of with the following directions:-
c
(i) Petitioners would be entitled to benefit of past
service right from inception when they joined service
under Government of India for purposes of all
terminal benefits and in-service benefits linked to
length of service. D

.
_,

t-
(ii) Petitioners would be entitled to be posted to a
post in equivalent scale held by them when letter
dated 23.4.2003 was issued.

(iii) Petitioners would be entitled to basic pay E
protection.

(iv) If as a result of direction (ii) above, petitioners are
to be put in a post of higher grade, arrears of pay
and allowances would be paid within 6 weeks from F
today.
.k
(v) Petitioners would be entitled (only) to the
allowances for the ground post in which they are to
be posted."
G
'.
9. On 25th November, 2004, appellant - K.A. Ansari,
"
~

--; communicated the said order to the Chairman-cum-Managing
Director of the Indian Airlines, requesting for his posting to a
post in the equivalent scale, i.e. Deputy Manager, in terms of
direction (ii), extracted above, with consequential relief. In H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A response thereto, the Indian Airlines informed him that he had -+ ~

·.been placed in the proper scale and his basic pay was duly
protected in terms of the aforenoted direction (iii) and service
rendered in Vayudoot shall also be taken into consideration for
the purpose ofgratuity, provident fund, loans, advances and
B medical facilities etc.
10. Not being fully satisfied with the response of the Indian
Airlines, the first appellant moved a miscellaneous application
1
before the High Court, seeking a direction to the respondent
to place him in a ground job in the equivalent pay scale of
c Deputy Manager, as directed in the final order dated 11th
October, 2004. In short the grievance of the applicant was that
although on23rd April, 2003, when Indian Airlines had asked
him to join on the post of Assistant Manager (Flight Safety), he
was in the grade of Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-
·o 250-8025 but he had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.5675-
175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025.

11. After notice to the Indian '(1.irlines, as noted earlier, the
learned Single Judge disposed of the application vide order +
E dated 4th March, 2005. Inter alia, observing that counsel for the
Indian Airlines had not disputed that when letter dated 23rd
April, 2003 was issued to the appellants they were in the grade
of Rs .6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025, the
learned -Single. Judge disposed of the application with the
F following directions to the Indian Airlines:-

"It is not being in dispute that when letter dated 23.4.2003 -.,l
was issued petitioner being a first officer was in the pay
.scale of Rs.6200-175-6550-200~ 7500-225-7775-250-
8025.
G
Accordingly, petitioner on ground would have to be placed
in the said scale.
r
As this court .understands the law tQ be, if the .cadre of a
person is changed he would be entitled to an equivalent
H
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 789
[D.K. JAIN, J.]

pay scale and in the absence of an equivalent p·ay scale A
would be entitled to be placed in the next above scale.

Scale in which the respondent seeks to place the petitioner
is Rs.5675-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025. The
fact that the upper limit of the two scales i.e., 6200-175- 8
6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025, and Rs.5675-175-
6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025 is the same is
immaterial.

Application for directions is accordingly disposed of
directing Indian Airlines to, after grounding, place the C
petitioner in the pay scale held by the petitioner i.e.,
Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025. In no
case the petitioner be placed in a scale lower to the scale·
aforesaid. However, it is clarified that on grounding, if pay
scale of Rs.6200-175-6550-175-6550-200-7500-225- D
7775-250-8025 is not available, petitioner would have to
be placed in the next higher'grade."

12. Aggrieved thereby, the Indian Airlines filed intra-co~rt
appeal and as noted above, the Division Bench has reversed E·
the said order. That is how the appellants have come up before
us in this appeal.

13. We have heard learned counsel for the· parties.

14. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing on F
~ behalf of the appellants submitted that the Division Bench of
the High Court failed to appreciate that in the miscellaneous
application, no new dispute requiring fres~ adjudication had
been raised. The relief claimed in the application was only in
the nature of clarification to the extent that because of protection G
of the pay scales at the time of absorption in the Indian Airlines,
-v the appellants were entitled for placement in an equivalent or
higher pay scale. It was asserted that by way of clarification,
learned Single Judge had merely reiterated and directed
implementation of the directions issued while disposing of the H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 16 S.C.R.
. '

A writ petitions. It was also pleaded that the main order dated 11th + .~
October, 2004, having attained finality, the r~spondent is
otherwise bound to comply with the same. 'r
15. Per contra, Mr. R.S: Suri, learned counsel appearing
B
on behalf of the Indian Airlines, supporting the order of the ,'
~-

)
Division Bench, submitted that when the proceedings stood ~
...'
terll}inated on final disposal of the writ petitions, it was not open F
to the learned Single Judge to reopen the proceedings on filing )( ~

of the miscellaneous application by the appellant in respect of
the same subject matter.
c
16. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of
a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh '·I
· decision of the case. It. needs little emphasis that when the I
proce~dings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ
D peti~ion, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proce~dings
~

-
by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter
which provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not
followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality
of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. (See: State
+ r-
~

E ·or Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. ). At the same
1
,
time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, Ir
if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been
made is trying to take advantage because the order is couched I
in ambiguous or equivocal words.
~
F 17. Therefore, the question for consideration in the instant
~
case is whether the miscellaneous application preferred by the
first appellant could be said to be founded on a fresh cause of
action?

G 18. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival rt.-
submissions, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the .... _
terms of fini:fl order dated 11th October, 2004, the r
miscellaneou$ application could not be said to be founded on
a separate or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of the
H 1. (1999) a sec 649.'
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 791
[D.K. JAIN,. J.]
~ .; aforenoted legal position viz. on termination of proceedings by A
final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen
the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provided fresh cause of action. It is
manifest that in direction No. (ii), the learned Single Judge had
clearly directed that the writ petitioners would be entitled 'to be 8
posted to a post in equivalent scale held by them when the letter
dated 23rd April, 2003 was issued.' The respondent - Indian
)\
Airlines was obliged to obey and implement the said direction.
If they had any doubt or if the order was not clear; it was always
open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said c
order. Without challenging the said direction or seeking
clarification, Indian Airlines could not circumvent the same on
any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in implementation of an order
passed by the Court, howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no
answer for its non-implementation. In our opinion, in the
D
miscellaneous application, no fresh relief, on the basis of a new

-
cause of action, had been sought. It was an application filed
for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the
+ writ petition, namely, placement in appropriate grade in wh.ich
he was placed at the time when letter dated 23rd April, 2003,
was issued. This was precisely done by the learned Single E
Judge vide his order dated 4th March, 2005. Without examining
those factual aspects of the matter, in our judgment, the Division
Bench was in error in holding that after the disposal of the writ
petitions, miscellaneous application was not maintainable and
the only remedy available to the appellant was to approach the F
~
authorities and if his interpretation was not acceptable to them,
then he could file a fresh writ petition.

19. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and
set aside the order of the Appellate Bench and restore the order G
passed by the learned Single Judge on 4th March, 2005,
_. directing the respondent to implement the main order, dated
i
11th October, 2004. In the circumstances of the case, the
parties shall b_ear their own costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed. H