SHREEDHARAN KALLAT versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 26-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHREEDHARAN KALLAT 
v. 
I
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 1995 
..
B 
[ R.M. SAHA! AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ J 
Service Law 
Service Rule-interpretation order by Court-Order attaining 
c finality-Held Department is precluded from challenging the interpretation 
given by Court-But Court can intetfere with such interpretation order. 
Judicial Comity 
High Court-Judgment by-Settlement of issues in judgment IJ)I High 
D Court-Affirmation by Supreme Court-Reopening of issues by Tribunaf-
Comment by Tribunal against judgment-Held Act of judicial impropriety. 
The appellant, who was initially appointed in Railways as a Ticket 
Collector and later p.-omoted as travelling Ticket Examiner, went on 
E 
depntation as Railway Sectional Officer (RSO) but by an order dated 
2.2.73 he was reverted to his parent department. He filed petitions before 
the High Court challenging the order which were allowed by a single judge 
of the High Court; The order of single judge was affirmed in appeal by the 
Division Bench of the High Court and even the Special Leave Petition filed 
in this Court was dismissed. Since the order was not implemented, the 
F 
appellant approached the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant was called 
for selection to a class II post and the High Court directed that his 
seniority be reckoned from 1963. 
The Railways unsuccessfully challenged this order of the High Court 
G 
before the Division Bench of the High Court as well as before this Court 
and consequently his seniority was fixed from 1963. Later some direct 
recruits, who were not affected by fixation of appellant's seniority, filed 
applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the proceed· 
.. 
ings before the Tribunal not only the Railways raked up the same con· 
troversy on which it was unsuccessful earlier but also the Tribunal 
H re-opened the issues which were already settled by the judgment of the 
828 
SHREEDHARAN KALLATv. U.0.1. 
829 
• I 
High Court. Further the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgments A 
'1 
rendered by the High Court in favour of the appellant and affirmed by this 
Court, but also held that they bad no binding effect as they appeared to 
be inconsistent with the Rules. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the 
appellant preferred appeal before this Court. 
. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this B 
Court 
' 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal acted against judicial comity and propriety. 
-1. 
[830-B] 
2. In service matters where validity or interpretation of rule is c 
concerned any order passed by the courts which ·achieves finality is binding 
on the Department. If the court is satisfied that any employee has been 
prejudiced of bis right under Article 14 has been violated it may interfere 
in bis favour. But the Department is precluded from challenging the 
interpretation given by the court. Since the earlier order bas been upheld D 
by this Court the order could be set aside by only this Court. The Tribunal 
could not have passed an order which resulted in disturbing the finality 
about interpretation of rule. [832·A·B] 
3. The issues having been settled by the judgment of the High Court, 
the Tribunal committed act of grave impropriety in attempting to reopen E 
it. Such practice of the Tribunal cannot ·be commended. The judgment was 
binding on Railways. It could not once again take up those very pleas which 
were rejected by the High Court. Such unwarranted stand by public 
authorities results in protracted litigation involving wastage of money and 
time. [831-F·G] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3565 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.87 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, in Madras in O.A. No. 513 of 1986. 
G 
-j. 
P.S. Poti, Ms. Sushma Suri (N.P.) for the Appellant. 
A.Mariarputham and Ms. Arona Mathur for the Respondents. 
The following order of the. Court was delivered : 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R.' 
A 
This appeal directed against the order of the Central Administrative 
.,, 
Tribunal does not raise any intricate question of law but it exposes very 
disturbing feature as the Tribunal not only commented upon the judgments 
rendered by the Kerala High Court in favour of the appellant which had 
been affirmed by this Court, but went on to hold that they had no binding 
B 
effect as they appean,id to be inconsistent with the Rules. This was against 
judicial comity and propriety. We do not approve of it. 
The

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