SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORLSSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 03-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARA T CHANDRA MISHRA AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF ORlSSA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 3, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
~ ... 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section I /--Decision not challenged in 
appeal-Effect of-Held: It attained finality and was binding on all-Doctrine 
c of res judicata would therefore apply-Parties cannot raise the same issue 
once again--Doctrines-Doctrine of res judicata. 
Some of the government employees were aggrieved by the 1984 
Gradation list and made representation against it before the State of 
Orissa. The State issued Circular dated 21.2.1984 for fresh guidelines and 
consequently published the corrected Gradation List on 22.8.1990. This 
,> 
D was challenged before the Tribunal which vide Order dated 9.3.1992 
quashed the corrected Gradation list and upheld the validity of 1984 
Gradation List. The correctness of this order was not questioned by the 
State and the applicants. Thereafter, State issued a Circular dated 
12.8.1992 incorporating the terms of the order of the Tribunal. Meanwhile, 
E appellant had filed SLP challenging the order of Tribunal. In view of 
Circular dated 12.8.1992, this Court on 5.1.1993 dismissed the SLP as 
infructuous and granted liberty to the appellant to pursue appropri11te 
remedy. Thereafter, appellant filed OA before the Tribunal, which held 
that in view of its earlier decision and consequent dismissal of SLP by this 
F 
Court, the issue could not be reopened. Appellant filed Writ Petition before 
High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The State of Orissa and other applicants did not file any 
special leave petition before this Court except appellant. The order of the 
G Tribunal dated 9.3.1992 thus attained finality. The principle of res judicatu 
would, therefore, apply. This Court while passing its order dated 
-
05.01.1993 did not and could not have dispensed with the applicability of 
.... 
the principle of res judicata, as the right of the respondents derived from 
the order of the Tribunal dated 9.3.1992 could not have been taken away. 
H 
116 
1121-D-E, Fl 
_J, 
SARAT CHANDRA MISHRA v. STATE OF ORISSA 
117 
1.2. The judgment and order dated 9.3.1992 would indisputably be A 
binding on the State and the appellants and, thus, it is not open to them 
to raise the said question once again. 1121-HI 
2.1. The judgment of a court, cannot be read as a statute. While 
construing a judgment, it may be presumed that the same has been 
rendered in accordance with law. (122-BI 
B 
~-' 
Ramesh Chand Daga v. Rameshwari Bai; 120051 4 SCC 772 and Gajraj 
Singh and Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., 120011 5 SCC 762, referred to. 
1122-q 
2.2. The order of this Court dated 5.1.1993 must be construed. having C 
regard to the entire factual and legal backdrop. It is no doubt true that 
this Court refused to determine the matter on merit and came to the 
opinion that the special leave petition had become infructuous in view of 
the order of the State Government dated 12.8.1992, but the fact remains 
that even before this Court the said order of the State Government was 
not questioned. 1122-G, HI 
3. This Court moreover, granted liberty to approach the appropriate 
forum only in the event any distinct cause of action arises therefor, 
presumably meaning thereby, when an error had been committed by the 
State in implementing the said order in individual cases. This Court by 
its order, had no intention to give liberty to the appellants to reopen the 
question as regard the validity or otherwise of the Gradation List of 1984 
which became final and binding. Once the said order attained finality, this 
Court could not have allowed the parties to approach the Tribunal once 
again indirectly. As the principle of res judicata was applicable, the 
Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reopen the issue. This Court could not and 
did not confer a jurisdiction upon the Tribunal which it did not have. 
(123-A-CJ 
4. It is furthermore well-settled that this Court cannot exercise its 
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in violation of 
the statutory provisions and that too at this distant time so as to unsettle 
a settled thing. 1123-B-DI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5087 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.200 I of the Orissa High 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Court in O.J.C. No. 14151/99. 
H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A 
Raju Ramachandran and Jana Kalyan Das f

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