S.R. BHAGWAT AND ORS. versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 12-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.R. BHAGWAT AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN AND S.B. MA.TMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India Scheme of : 
Doctline of separation of powers-Legislative powe1~Exercise of-A 
binding judicial decision between paities-Whether could be made ineffective C 
by enacting a legislation. 
Se1vice Law : 
Kamataka State Civil Se1vices (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and 
Pension) Act, 1973-Section 11(2}-Validity of-Oveniding effect-Sub-sec-
D 
tion (2) of Section 11 t1ying to ovenule binding judicial decision against 
State--State empowered to review such judgments and orders and pass fresh 
orders-Provision held ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. 
Sections 4(2), (3) & (8}-Validity of-Promotions of allottee:,~Bi11ding 
directions issued by High Cozat against State-Cannot be nullified by E 
provisions of section 4-Sub-sectio11s (2), (3) (8) of Section 4, held inopera-
tive. 
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging sub-sections (2), (3), 
(4), (5), (6) & (8) of Section 4 and 11(2) of the Karnataka State Civil 
Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, in so far 
as they conflicted with the order of the High Court, which had become 
final between the parties. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were civil servants of the 
erstwhile State of Hyderabad and Bombay when their services stood 
allotted to the new State of Mysore u/s 115 of the State Reorganisation 
F 
Act, 1956, w.e.f. 1.11.56. 
In pursuance of the direction of the Central G 
Government, the State Government prepared provisional lnter State 
Seniority List and directed the appointing authorities of the new State of 
Mysore to make provisional promotions on the basis of the provisional 
Seniority Lists subject to the condition that promotion should be 
revised in accordance with the ranking in the Final Seniority List to be H 
545 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
effective from 1.11.1956 as decided by the Government of India in exercise 
of powers u/s 115(5) of the Reorganization Act. 
B 
c 
The petitioners claimed that they were senior in the final seniority 
lists to many others, their juniors had got promoted in the meantime on 
the basis of higher ranking in the provisional seniority list which was 
earlier operative till it got superseded by the final seniority list. Their claim 
for being granted deemed dates of promotions with all consequential 
benefits not having been accepted by the State of Mysore, the petitioners 
filed writ petitions before the High Court which were allowed by the 
Division Bench while holding that the case of each of these petitioners be 
considered for promotion to the post next above the cadre of the post he 
was holding on 1.11.1956 as on the date on which only one of his juniors 
according to the final inter state Seniority List was for the first time so 
promoted and that if he was found fit and promoted he be given all the 
benefits consequential thereon including consideration for promotion to 
D higher cadres and financial benefits. Pursuant to these directions, the 
respondent State considered the cases of all the petitioners and they had 
been given such deemed dates of promotions. As cons~quential monetary 
benefits on the grant of deemed promotion were not made available, the 
petitioners, filed contempt petitions in the High Court. During the penden-
E 
cy of these proceedings, the respondent State issued the Mysore State Civil 
Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Ordinance 1 of 1973 
which ultimately culminated into the impugned Act. By the impugned 
provisions, the actual financial benefits directed to be made available to . 
the petitioners pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench of the High 
F 
Court which had become final were sought to be taken away. The 
petitioners filed this writ petition for getting a declaration that the im-
pugned provisions in so far as they tried to confiscate the financial benefits 
made available to them by the writs of mandamus issued by the High Court 
were null and void as they amounted to legislative over-ruling of binding 
judicial decisions and sought to deprive them of their fundamental rights 
G guaranteed under the Constitution. 
The respondent submitted that consequential financial benefits 
directed by the High Court did not cover monetary benefits flowing from 
deemed promotions and all that the Division Bench had directed the State 
H was to consider the case of the pet

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