Holding

A court's final interpretation of service rules is binding on the department and cannot be challenged, and the CAT acted against judicial comity by reopening settled issues, so its order is set aside.

Summary

The appellant, a railway employee, was reverted from a deputed post and successfully challenged the reversion and later seniority fixation in his favour through the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. The Railways later contested the seniority order, but the High Court again upheld it. Direct recruits then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which reopened the same issues already settled by the courts and held the earlier judgments had no binding effect. The Supreme Court held that once a court has given a final interpretation of service rules, that interpretation is binding on the department and the department cannot challenge it; the CAT’s attempt to revisit the matters violated judicial comity and propriety. Consequently, the Court set aside the CAT’s order and dismissed the respondents’ claim petitions.

Issues considered

Can the Central Administrative Tribunal reopen service matters that have been finally decided by a court?
Is a department precluded from challenging a court's interpretation of service rules once finality is achieved?
Does the CAT's order violate principles of judicial comity and propriety?

Legislation cited

Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

service lawjudicial comityCentral Administrative Tribunalfinality of court ordersinterpretation of service rulesArticle 14administrative law

Judgment

A SHREEDHARAN KALLAT
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. I
APRIL 26, 1995 ..
B [ R.M. SAHA! AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ J

Service Law

Service Rule-interpretation order by Court-Order attaining
c finality-Held Department is precluded from challenging the interpretation
given by Court-But Court can intetfere with such interpretation order.

Judicial Comity

High Court-Judgment by-Settlement of issues in judgment IJ)I High
D Court-Affirmation by Supreme Court-Reopening of issues by Tribunaf-
Comment by Tribunal against judgment-Held Act of judicial impropriety.

The appellant, who was initially appointed in Railways as a Ticket
Collector and later p.-omoted as travelling Ticket Examiner, went on
depntation as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) but by an order dated
E 2.2.73 he was reverted to his parent department. He filed petitions before
the High Court challenging the order which were allowed by a single judge
of the High Court; The order of single judge was affirmed in appeal by the
Division Bench of the High Court and even the Special Leave Petition filed
in this Court was dismissed. Since the order was not implemented, the
F appellant approached the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant was called
for selection to a class II post and the High Court directed that his
seniority be reckoned from 1963.

The Railways unsuccessfully challenged this order of the High Court
before the Division Bench of the High Court as well as before this Court
G and consequently his seniority was fixed from 1963. Later some direct
recruits, who were not affected by fixation of appellant's seniority, filed
applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the proceed·
ings before the Tribunal not only the Railways raked up the same con·
..
troversy on which it was unsuccessful earlier but also the Tribunal
H re-opened the issues which were already settled by the judgment of the
828
SHREEDHARAN KALLATv. U.0.1. 829

• I High Court. Further the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgments A
'1 rendered by the High Court in favour of the appellant and affirmed by this
Court, but also held that they bad no binding effect as they appeared to
be inconsistent with the Rules. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the
appellant preferred appeal before this Court.

. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this B
Court

' -1.
HELD: 1. The Tribunal acted against judicial comity and propriety.
[830-B]
2. In service matters where validity or interpretation of rule is c
concerned any order passed by the courts which ·achieves finality is binding
on the Department. If the court is satisfied that any employee has been
prejudiced of bis right under Article 14 has been violated it may interfere
in bis favour. But the Department is precluded from challenging the
interpretation given by the court. Since the earlier order bas been upheld
D
by this Court the order could be set aside by only this Court. The Tribunal
could not have passed an order which resulted in disturbing the finality
about interpretation of rule. [832·A·B]

3. The issues having been settled by the judgment of the High Court,
the Tribunal committed act of grave impropriety in attempting to reopen E
it. Such practice of the Tribunal cannot ·be commended. The judgment was
binding on Railways. It could not once again take up those very pleas which
were rejected by the High Court. Such unwarranted stand by public
authorities results in protracted litigation involving wastage of money and
time. [831-F·G]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3565 of
1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.87 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, in Madras in O.A. No. 513 of 1986. G
P.S. Poti, Ms. Sushma Suri (N.P.) for the Appellant.
-j.
A.Mariarputham and Ms. Arona Mathur for the Respondents.

The following order of the. Court was delivered : H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.'

A This appeal directed against the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal does not raise any intricate question of law but it exposes very
.,,
disturbing feature as the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgments
rendered by the Kerala High Court in favour of the appellant which had
been affirmed by this Court, but went on to hold that they had no binding
effect as they appean,id to be inconsistent with the Rules. This was against
B judicial comity and propriety. We do not approve of it.

The appellant who was appointed as a Ticket Collector in 1950 was ~
promoted as Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1951. He went on deputation \
as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) in 1960. There he continued for nearly
c 12 years. He was reverted to the parent department on 2.2.73. It was
challenged by way of two writ petitions. The petitions were allowed by the
learned Single Judge. It was held that the appointment of appellant as
Railway Sectional Officer was based on selection. The Court further held
that the post was permanent and the claim of the Railways that it was a
tenure post was not correct. This order was affirmed in appeal by the
D
Division Bench and even the SLP filed in this Court was dismissed. Since
the order was not implemented, the appellant approached the High Court,
once again, and the railways were directed to dispose of the representation
within two months. But the order was not complied. The appellant ap-
poached the High Court for the third time. He was called for selection to
E class II post. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that in
class II post his seniority was to be reckoned from 1963. This order was
challenged by the Railways before the Division Bench. The appeal was
dismissed. The SLP filed by the Railways was also dismissed. In 1983 the
Railways fixed the seniority of the appellant in Class II from 1%3.
F
Thus came to an end the first phase of litigation. Now started the
second phase. One S. Ramkrishan (Respondent No.6) who was direct
recruit and was not affected by fixation of appellant's seniority filed writ
petition in the High Court. It was subsequently transferred to Central
Administrative Tribunal. During hearing it transpired that he was not
G aggrieved person and then another direct appointee S.Chakradhara Rao
(Respondent No.5) filed claim petition which was heard along with earlier
petition and the decision in it is subject matter of this appeal. 1-

What is surprising is that apart from respondents event the Railways
H which was unsuccessful twice again raked up the same controversy and
SHREEDHARAN KALLATv. U.0.1. 831

supported the respondents. The plea of the Railways is described thus by A
the Tribunal,

"Thus the stand taken by the railways in their counter in all these
applications is that Shreedharan will not be entitled either for
retention as RSO or for promotion or for protection of the emolu-
ments which he had received while on deputation, but for the B
judgments of the Kerala High Court."

The Tribunal framed following issues:-

"(i) whether the order of the fourth respondent dt. 22.5.1979 C
appointing Shreedharan as CTTI with effect from 1.1.1979, is
valid;

(ii) whether the order of the fourth respondent dt. 16.6.1979
confirming Shreedharan as CTTI with effect from 20.10.1975
is correct; D
(iii) whether the order of the third respondent dt. 21.6.1979 in-
forming Shreedharan that he can be considered only for the
post of Asst. Commercial Officer, is valid;

(iv) whether the fourth respondent's order dt. 24.5.1980 appoint- E
ing Shreedharan as Public Relations Officer is valid;

(v) whether the fourth respondent's order dt. 27.1.1983 fixing the
seniority of Shreedharan in Class II as on 1964 is valid in law."

The first four issues having been settled by the judgment of the High Court, F
the Tribunal committed act of grave impropriety in attempting to reopen
it. Such practice of the Tribunal cannot be commended. It has interfered
at the instance of the respondents who were not adversely affected. The
judgment was binding on Railways. It could not once again take up those
very pleas which were rejected by the High Court. Such unwarranted stand G
by public authorities results in protected litigation involving wastage of
money and time.

Assuming that the respondents could challenge fixation of seniority
of the appellant as the order which furnished foundation for the determina-
tion of seniority, was passed without impleading the respondents, the scope H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A of such petition could be limited. In service matters where validity or
interpretation of rule is concerned any order passed by the courts which
achieves finality is binding on the Department. If the court is satisfied that
any employee has been prejudiced or his right under Article 14 has been
violated it may interfere in his favour. But the Department is precluded
from challenging the interpretation given by the court. Since the earlier
B order has been upheld by this Court the order could be set aside by this
Court. The Tribunal could not have passed an order which resulted in
disturbing the finality about interpretation of rule specially when the S.L.P.
had been dismissed by this Court.

C The appeal is consequently allowed and the order of the Tribunal is
set aside. The claim petition filed by the respondents shall stand dismissed.
The appellant was entitled to exemplary costs against Railways, but since
no one appeared for the Railways, and the learned counsel for the appel-
lant did not pmiS for it we refrain from imposing costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.