State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Navindra Singh Bora & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The Government of Uttarakhand has filed the present writ petition questioning the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015 dated 26.04.2017. The State of Uttarakhand and various Deputy Commissioners were arrayed as respondents in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015. The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition, set-aside the seniority list dated 19.12.2015 impugned before it, and directed the State Government to re-determine the seniority of Assistant Commissioners, Commercial Tax according to Rule 6 of the Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules, 2002, and in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment.

Aggrieved thereby, two Deputy Commissioners (who were also respondents in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015) filed WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017; and a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 24.09.2018, upheld the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015 dated 26.04.2017 for the reasons additionally assigned in its order. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed.

We are informed by Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, that the petitioners in these two writ petitions have approached the Supreme Court against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WPSB Nos.297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018; the Government of Uttarakhand, which has filed the present writ petition questioning the very same order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015 dated 19.02.2015, was not only a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, but was also among the respondents in WPSB Nos.297 and 326 of 2017; the judgment of the Division Bench in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018 also binds them; while they are no doubt entitled to question the validity of the order of the Division Bench, along with the petitioners in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017, before the Supreme Court, they are not entitled to file a separate writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court, questioning the order of the Tribunal which has been affirmed by the Division Bench by its order in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018, as a co-ordinate Bench cannot set aside the order of the Public Services Tribunal which has been upheld by the Division Bench.

The question which necessitates examination, in this writ petition, is whether the Government of Uttarakhand is entitled to file a fresh writ petition questioning the very same order of the Public Services Tribunal which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018 to which the State Government was a party.

Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners, would put forth submissions on merits and contend that the order of the Division Bench in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018 is a judgment rendered per incuriam, and is, therefore, non-est in the eye of the law. An order inter-parties is binding on the parties thereto. The judgment of a competent Court is binding inter-parties and cannot be re-agitated in collateral proceedings. An order or judgment of a Court/Tribunal, even if erroneous, is binding inter-parties. The binding character of judgments, of Courts of competent jurisdiction, is in essence a part of the rule of law on which administration of justice is founded. (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers' Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others : (1990) 2 SCC 715; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and Anr. : (2005) 1 SCC 444). Matters in controversy, in writ proceedings under Article 226, decided after full contest, after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case, by a Court competent to decide it, and which proceedings have attained finality, is binding inter-parties. (Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) : AIR 1965 SC 1153; State of Punjab vs. Bua Das Kaushal : AIR 1971 SC 1676). Once a matter, which was the subject-matter of a lis, stood determined by a competent Court, no party can thereafter be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. (Swamy Atmananda and Ors. vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Ors : AIR 2005 SC 2392; Ishwar Dutt vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. : (2005) 7 SCC 190). Issues which have been concluded inter-parties cannot be raised again in proceedings inter-parties. (State of Haryana vs. State of Punjab and Anr.: (2004) 12 SCC 673). In examining whether a precedent is binding, the doctrine of per incuraim may justify a co-ordinate Bench holding that it is not. An earlier judgment, passed in ignorance of a statute or binding authority, would not constitute a precedent binding in subsequent cases as it is per incuriam. That does not, however, mean that a co-ordinate Bench can sit in judgment over the order passed by the Division Bench in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018, and take a different view therefrom, more so as the Government of Uttarakhand was also a party to both these writ petitions, and is bound by the said order.

We see no justification, therefore, in permitting the Government of Uttarakhand to question the validity of the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 19/NB/DB/2015 dated 26.04.2017, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WPSB Nos. 297 and 326 of 2017 dated 24.09.2018, by way of the present writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.