Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had reopened service issues already settled by the Kerala High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appellant, Shreedharan Kallat, was appointed as a Ticket Collector in 1950 and promoted as Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1951. He went on deputation as Railway Sectional Officer in 1960 and continued for nearly twelve years. He was reverted to his parent department on 2 February 1973. He challenged the reversion through two writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the petitions, holding that his appointment as Railway Sectional Officer was based on selection and that the post was permanent, rejecting the Railways' contention that it was a tenure post. The Division Bench affirmed the order and the Special Leave Petition filed by the Railways was dismissed. Since the order was not implemented, the appellant approached the High Court again, and the Railways were directed to dispose of the representation within two months. The order was not complied with. The appellant approached the High Court a third time and was called for selection to a Class II post. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that his seniority in Class II post should be reckoned from 1963. The Division Bench dismissed the Railways' appeal and the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. In 1983, the Railways fixed the appellant's seniority in Class II from 1963, ending the first phase of litigation. In the second phase, one S. Ramakrishnan, a direct recruit, filed a writ petition in the High Court which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. During hearing, it transpired that he was not an aggrieved person. Another direct appointee, S. Chakradhara Rao, filed a claim petition which was heard along with the earlier petition. The Tribunal framed five issues regarding the validity of appointment orders and fixation of seniority. The first four issues had already been settled by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal committed grave impropriety by attempting to reopen them at the instance of respondents who were not adversely affected. The Railways, despite being unsuccessful twice, supported the respondents and raked up the same controversy. The Court held that the judgment was binding on the Railways and they could not take up pleas already rejected by the High Court. In service matters where validity or interpretation of a rule is concerned, any order passed by the courts which achieves finality is binding on the Department. If the Court is satisfied that an employee has been prejudiced or his right under Article 14 has been violated, it may interfere in his favour, but the Department is precluded from challenging the interpretation given by the Court. Since the earlier order had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal could not have passed an order disturbing the finality about interpretation of rules. The appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The claim petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. The Court observed that the appellant was entitled to exemplary costs against the Railways, but since no one appeared for the Railways and the learned counsel for the appellant did not press for costs, no costs were imposed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Judicial Discipline - Finality of Decisions - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The Central Administrative Tribunal reopened issues conclusively settled by the Kerala High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, including validity of appointment orders and seniority fixation. The Supreme Court held that such approach violates judicial comity and propriety; once an interpretation of service rules attains finality, the Department is precluded from re-agitating it. However, an employee prejudiced by violation of Article 14 may seek interference. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the claim petitions dismissed. Held that appeal succeeds (Paras 1-3). B) Administrative Law - Central Administrative Tribunal - Scope of Review - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over High Court decisions affirmed by the Supreme Court. It acts with grave impropriety when it attempts to reopen settled service matters at the instance of employees who were not adversely affected. The Department's stand that the employee was entitled to benefits only because of High Court judgments is unsustainable after SLP dismissal. Held that the appeal succeeds, the impugned Tribunal order is quashed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could reopen and decide issues already settled by the Kerala High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and whether the Department is precluded from challenging the final interpretation of service rules.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside. The claim petition filed by the respondents stood dismissed. No costs were imposed.
Law Points
- Prior decisions of High Court affirmed by Supreme Court bind Department and Tribunal
- Department precluded from challenging interpretation of rules
- judicial comity and propriety
- finality of service matters
- scope of Central Administrative Tribunal review limited
