CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION versus B. YASHODABAIAND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 08-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 12 S.C.R. 370 
A 
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OP. 
B 
CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION 
v. 
B. YASHODABAIAND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2002) 
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 
F 
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 
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 
2002 (1) SCR 269 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 9 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7130 of 2002. 
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. 
F 
G 
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 a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.