LexSATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 217 : 2025 INSC 491 Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 179 of 2018) 16 April 2025 [Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the decision in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, upholding the cut-off date of 02.12.2004, is per incuriam; whether the aforesaid decision is binding on the petitioners; whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable to directly or collaterally challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 32 – Judgment/Order of Supreme Court passed u/Article 136, not amenable to judicial review u/Article 32 – In a matter, High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by another group of petitioners directing the State to provide pension to the retired employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited (Corporation) in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 – Said decision was reversed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood – Present petition u/Article 32 filed by the petitioners, retired officers of the Corporation challenging the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood as per incuriam, aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits to them in terms of the 1999 Scheme discontinued vide the notification dated 02.12.2004, which carved out an exception for those who had opted for the scheme and had superannuated prior to 02.12.2004: Held: In Rajesh Chander Sood, this Court held that the State Government was justified in postulating a cut-off date by which some of the employees governed by the 1999 Scheme (those who had retired prior to 02.12.2004 were entitled to draw pension under the 1999 Scheme whereas those who had not retired by the time * Author 218 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports the repeal notification was issued on 02.12.2004 were denied such benefit) – It was held that the State Government had the competence to repeal the 1999 Scheme and by doing so, it did not curtail the right of the employees to receive pension rather they would continue to receive pension under the erstwhile pension scheme however, would not get the additional benefits under the 1999 Scheme – This Court had given elaborate reasons while allowing the civil appeal and upholding the cut-off date of 02.12.2004 – Rajesh Chander Sood did not ignore any binding precedent and is not per incuriam – When this Court had set aside the judgment of the High Court, the claim of not only those petitioners but similarly situated employees (like the present petitioners) were also negatived – Rajesh Chander Sood is thus, binding on the petitioners – Furthermore, Judgment and order of this Court passed u/Article 136 of the Constitution of India is not amenable to judicial review u/Article 32 of the Constitution – Thus, there cannot be any challenge either directly or collaterally to the decision of this Court in Rajesh Chander Sood in a proceeding u/ Article 32 – Present writ petition is misconceived. [Paras 21.5, 22, 23, 28, 32] Administration of justice – Adjudication process – Principle of finality – Finality of lis, core facet of judicial system – Emphasized: Held: Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened – A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by Supreme Court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition – But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding u/Article 32 of the Constitution of India – If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation creating chaos in the administration of justice – Constitution of India – Article 32. [Para 30] Case Law Cited State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood [2016] 6 SCR 851 : (2016) 10 SCC 77 – held not per incuriam. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [1966] 3 SCR 744 : AIR 1967 SC 1 – followed. Sub-Inspector Sadhan Kumar Goswami v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 814 : (1997) 2 SCC 225; Indian Council for [2025] 5 S.C.R. 219 Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [2011] 9 SCR 146 : (2011) 8 SCC 161; Khoday Distillerie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.