CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNIONversusB. YASHODABAIAND OTHERS

                       (2014] 12 S.C.R. 370

A      SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP.
           CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION
                                  v.
                  B. YASHODABAIAND OTHERS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2002)
B                     DECEMBER 08, 2014
            [ANIL R. DAVE, MADAN 8. LOKUR AND
                     KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

C       Precedent - Administrative order in compliance of
  Supreme Court decision regarding promotion - Challenged
  - Single Judge of High Court set aside the order holding that
  judgment of Supreme Court was per incuriam - Division
  Bench of High Court upheld the judgment - Held: High Court
D committed serious error in law by not following the judgment
  passed by Supreme Court - Such a course adopted by High
   Court was against the law of precedents and ratio-decidendi
   and violative of Art. 141 of the Constitution - Constitution of
   India, 1950 - Art. 141 - Service Law - Promotion.
E       Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The Single Judge as well as the Division
    Bench of the High Court committed a serious error in law
    by not following the judgment delivered by this Court and
F   by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12th June,
    1998, which had been issued to the concerned employees
    so as to give effect to the Judgment dated 13th January,
    1988 delivered by this Court. [Para 19) [376-E]

G        2. The High Court has committed a grave error by
    taking a different view than the one which had been taken
    by this Court especially when the rules governing the
    promotion policy had not been amended after the


H                                370
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMP. CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY 371
       EMPLOYEES UNION v. 8. YASHODABAI
aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court. [Para        A
12] [375-A, BJ

     3. It was not open to the High Court to hold that the
judgment delivered by this Court was per incuriam. When
a higher court has rendered a particular decision, the said
                                                            8
decision must be followed by a subordinate or lower
court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set aside.
If the litigants or lawyers are permitted to argue that
something what was correct, but was not argued earlier
before the higher court and on that ground if the courts
below are permitted to take a different view in a matter, C
possibly the entire law in relation to the precedents and .
ratio decidendi will have to be re-written and, that cannot
be done. Moreover, by not following the law laid down by
this Court, the High Court or the Subordinate Courts
would also be violating the provisions of Article 141 of D
the Constitution of India. [Paras 16 and 17) [375-F-H; 376-
A, B]

     Government of Goa v. A.H. Jaffar and sons ,fJnd Anr.
2008(11) SCC 18: 2008 (5) SCR 516; Suganthi Suresh             E
Kumar v. Jagdeeshan 2002(2) SCC 420: 2002 (1) SCR 269
- referred to.

                    Case Law Reference:
    2008 (5) SCR 516         referred to          Para 9       F
    2002 (1) SCR 269         referred to          Para 9
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7130 of 2002.
                                                               G
     From the Judgment & Order dated 14.08.2002 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 1683
of 1998.

    A Subba Rao, A. Venkatesh, K.L.D.S. Vinober for the
Appellant.                                                     H
    372      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014] 12 S.C.R.


A       A.Y. Chitale, Jayati Chitale, C.N. Sree Kumar, Prakash
    Ranjan Na yak for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment
B   delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal
    No.1683 of 1998 on 14th August, 2002, this appeal has been
    preferred by the South Central Railway Employees Co-Op.
    Ci'edit Society Employees' Union.

c        2. It is necessary to know the circumstances which gave
    rise to the present litigation, which has put the employees of
    the appellant-union to undue hardship and long-drawn litigation.

         3. The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit
    Society (hereinafter referred to as. 'the Society'), had framed
D   rules governing service conditions of. its employees and the
    said rules had been approved by the Registrar of CO"OP.
    Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This
    Court, in Civil Appeal No.4343of1988, had decided that there
    was no r-eservation policy for the employees of the Society in
E   the matter of promotion to higher cadre. The said decision had
    been taken by this Court for the reason that there was a dispute
    whether the policy of reservation was to be followed only at the
    stage of recruitment of the employees or it was also to be
    followed in the matter of giving promotion to the higher cadre.
F   After considering all relevant factors and relevant rules and
    regulations, this Court had come to a specific conclusion that
    there was no provision with regard to giving benefit of
    reservation of any kind to the employees of the society in the
    matter of their promotion. The said issue had arisen initially for
G   the reason that even in the matter of promotion, the policy with
    regard to reservation had been followed by the society and
    some promotions were given on the basis of reservation policy
    and the said policy was challenged by way of a writ petition in
    the High Court of Andhra Prad7sh and ultimately in the said
H
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMP CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY 373
 EMPLOYEES UNION v. B. YASHODABAI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]

proceedings, this Court had finally come to a conclusion in Civil      A
Appeal No.4343 of 1998 that in the matter of promotion, policy
of reservation was not to be followed and as a consequence
thereof, the persons who had been wrongly promoted on the
basis of reservation policy had to be reverted.
                                                                       B
     4. In the aforestated circumstances, so as to correct the
mistake which had been committed by the society and to give
effect to the judgment delivered in the aforestated appeal, the
Society had issued orders of reversion to the employees who
had been wrongly promoted. One such order dated 12th June,             C
1998 was served upon the concerned employees, who had
been wrongly promoted on the basis of their Cqste and creed.
The said order dated 12th June, 1998 was challenged by them
by filing Writ Petition No.17756 of 1998 in the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh.                           ·
                                                                       D
     5. It is really very strange that the writ petition challenging
the aforestated order dated 12th June, 1998 was allowed and
the aforestated order was quashed and set aside by the High
Court on 6th August, 1998.
                                                                       E
     6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Single
Judge of the High Court, Writ Appeal No.1638 of 1998 had
been filed by other employees of the society who had been
aggrieved by the wrongful promotions given by the Society on
the basis of the reservation policy. The said Writ Appeal had
                                                                       F
also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court
by an order dated 14th August, 2002.

    7. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-
employees who are aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ
Appeal No.1638 of 1998.                                                G

    8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-
employees' union had submitted before this Court that the High
Court had committed a grave error by reconsidering the issue
which had already been dei:ided by this Court. Once this Court         H
    374       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A had decided in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 thai the employees of
  the Society were not entitled io promotion on the basis of any
  reservation policy, the High Court could not have come to a
  different conclusion, when the judgment delivered by this Court
  in C.A. No.4343 of 19B8 .was sought to tie implemented l:iy
B issuance of an order dated 12th June, 1998 and the High Court
  had committed a grave error by setting aside the said order
  dated 12th June, 1998.

       9. The learried·counset h·ad further submitted that once this
  Court decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it cannot
C be said that ihe judgme'rit delivered oy this Court is per
  incuriam or this Court had ricii coi\sidered all relevant factors
  while delivering the said judgment. So as to substantiate the
  aforestated submission, the learned counsel had relied upon
  the judgments delivered by this Court in Government of Goa
D v. A.H. Jaffar and sons and ariother 2008(11) sec 18 and
  Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan 2002(2) SCC 420.

       10. It tiad been finally sul:irriitted tliat the different view taken
  by the High court is al:isoh.itely improper and tfiefefore, the
E appeal deserves to be allowed.

      · 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
  the employees, who had taken advantage of the reservation
  policy and had got promotion to the higher cadre, submitted
F that the High Court had rightly considered all relevant factors
  Which had not been considered by the Supreme Court.
  According to him, certain important and relevant factors had
  been ignored by this Court while delivering the judgment in C.A.
  No.4343 of 1988. According to him, as the High Court had
  considered all other relevant factors, which this Court had not
G considered, the judgment delivered by the High Court was just
  and proper and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed,

       12. We have heard the learned counsel at iength alld have
  also considered the submissions made, the judgments relied
H upon by the counsel, the earlier judgment delivered by this
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMP. CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY 375
 EMPLOYEES UNION v. 8. YASHODABAI [ANIL R. DAVE, J.)
Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 and the impugned judgment. In            A
our opinion, the High Court has committed a grave error by
taking a different view than the one which had been taken by
this. Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988, especially when the rules
governing the promotion policy had not been amended after the
aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court.                      s
      13. It is pertinent to note that a review application had been
filed in the aforestated C.A. No.4343 of 1988 and the same
had been rejected and therefore, the judgment delivered by this
Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988 had become final.
                                                                       c
      14. Once in pursuance of a judgment delivered by this Court
orders had been issued by the Society to its employees who
had been wrongly promoted, the High Court could not have held
that the orders were not valid because there were certain other
factors which had made the promotions given to the concerned           D
employees valid.

     15. In our opinion, the High Court should not have
considered any other factor especially when this Court had
come to a final conclusion that the policy with regard to              E
reservation in the matter of promotion to the employees was
not legal and proper.

    16. We are of the view that it was not open to the High
Court to hold that the judgment delivered by this Court in C.A.
No.4343 of 1988 was per incuriam.                                      F

     17. If the view taken by the High Court is accepted, in our
opinion, there would be total chaos in this country because in
that case there would be no finality to any order passed by this
Court. When a higher court has rendered a particular decision,         G
the said decision must be followed by a subordinate or lower
court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set aside. The
High Court had considered several provisions which, in its
opinion, had not been considered or argued before this Court
when C.A. No.4343 of 1988 was decided. If the litigants or             H
    376       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A lawyers are permitted to argue that something what was
  correct, but was not argued earlier before the higher court and
  on that ground if the courts below are permitted to take a
  different view in a matter, possibly the entire law in relation. to
  the precedents and ratio decidendi will have to be re-written
B and, in our opinion, that cannot be done. Moreover, by not
  following the law laid down by this Court, the High Court or the
  Subordinate Courts would also be violating the provisions of
  Article 141 of the.Constitution of India.

        18. We do not want to go into the arguments advanced
C by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents before
  the High Court for the simple reason that it was not open to them
  to advance any argument which would run contrary to the
  judgment delivered by this Court in C.A. No.4343 of 1988. In
  our opinion, the High Court did something which would be like
D setting aside a decree in the execution proceedings !

        19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view
  that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
  the High Court committed a serious error in law by not following
E the judgment delivered by this Court and by quashing and
  setting aside the order dated 12th June, 1998, which had been
  issued to the concerned employees so·as to give effect to the
  Judgment dated 13th January, 1988 delivered by this Court in
  C.A. No.4343 of 1988.
F        20. The impugned judgment delivered by the High Court
    is set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

    Kalpana K. Tripathy                                Appeal allowed.