Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment directing a cooperative bank to grant pensionary benefits to its retired employees, which the bank resisted citing severe financial strain. The single judge allowed the writ petition in 2012, and the division bench upheld it in 2024. The bank’s first SLP (No.16819/2024) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.09.2024. A miscellaneous application seeking recall of that dismissal was withdrawn on 20.12.2024 with liberty to pursue a review before the High Court. In the present SLP (No.15870/2025), the respondent pensioners’ association raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred by the earlier dismissal, as the main judgment had attained finality and no liberty to re-approach the Supreme Court was granted. The petitioner bank, represented by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, argued that no court had examined the merits, that the financial liability was crushing, and that Manisha Nimesh Mehta permitted a review after dismissal of an SLP simpliciter. The respondent, through senior counsel Kavin Gulati, relied on T K David to contend that an SLP against a review order is not maintainable when the main judgment stands unchallenged. The Court analyzed the history of the litigation, noting that the matter had come before it for the third time. It acknowledged the settled principle that dismissal of an SLP without leave does not merge the High Court’s judgment and therefore a review before the High Court is maintainable, but held that this did not enable a fresh SLP. Citing T K David and Bussa Overseas, the Court reiterated that once the main judgment becomes final due to dismissal of the first SLP, no relief can be granted in a subsequent SLP against the same judgment or its review order. The Court found force in the preliminary objection and concluded that the petition was not maintainable. It explicitly refrained from returning any findings on the merits of the pension dispute. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition under Article 136 - Maintainability - Constitution of India, Art. 136 - The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the present SLP was not maintainable because an earlier SLP against the same High Court judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23.09.2024, and a subsequent miscellaneous application for recall was withdrawn with liberty to file review before the High Court, but without liberty to approach the Supreme Court again. Held that the preliminary objection had force, and the SLP was not maintainable as the main judgment had attained finality and could not be reopened by a fresh SLP (Paras 2-3, 10). B) Judicial Precedent - SLP against Review Order - Non-maintainability when Main Judgment not Challenged - Constitution of India, Art. 136; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 47 R. 7 - The Court applied the precedential principle established in T K David v Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited that a special leave petition challenging only the order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable if the main judgment of the High Court is not under challenge, as no relief can be granted when the main judgment has become final. In the present case, the earlier SLP against the main judgment having been dismissed, the present SLP against the same judgment was effectively barred (Paras 12, 15-16). C) Review Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Merger - Constitution of India, Art. 136 - The Court noted that the dismissal of a special leave petition without granting leave does not attract the doctrine of merger, and thus a review petition before the High Court remains maintainable, as held in Manisha Nimesh Mehta v Board of Directors, ICICI Bank. However, this principle did not assist the petitioner because the question was not the maintainability of a review before the High Court but the maintainability of a fresh SLP after the main judgment had already been affirmed by an earlier dismissal of SLP. The petitioner had availed the liberty to file review before the High Court, and any grievance thereafter would have to be pursued in accordance with law, not by a collateral SLP (Paras 4, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the present Special Leave Petition is maintainable in view of the prior dismissal of SLP (C) No.16819/2024 against the same High Court judgment and the subsequent withdrawal of the miscellaneous application for recall with liberty to file review before the High Court.
Final Decision
The Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and held that the Special Leave Petition was not maintainable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Law Points
- non-maintainability of SLP when earlier SLP against same judgment dismissed
- dismissal of SLP without leave does not bar review before High Court but does not permit fresh SLP
- SLP against order rejecting review not entertained if main judgment not challenged
- doctrine of merger not attracted on dismissal of SLP simpliciter
