Issues finally decided by a coordinate bench cannot be re-agitated between the same parties.

The appellant, whose father Late Henat Kora died in harness on 6 July 2003, filed WPA No. 4912 of 2023 seeking his father’s retiral benefits with interest and compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).

By order dated 29 March 2023, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim for compassionate appointment, but directed payment of gratuity, provident fund-related dues, leave encashment and other terminal benefits, together with interest.

Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) preferred MAT 969 of 2023 against that order, in which the present appellant participated as the writ petitioner/respondent.

By order dated 29 January 2024, the Division Bench modified the interest payable on gratuity and directed payment of the dues within three weeks, subject to execution of an indemnity bond; the appellant did not challenge that order before a higher court.

Whether the appellant’s pending intra-court appeal was maintainable after the same claims arising from the same writ petition had been finally decided by a coordinate Division Bench in MAT 969 of 2023 after hearing the appellant.

Whether the doctrine of merger and the binding nature of a coordinate Bench’s decision required dismissal of the subsequent appeal, absent any challenge to the earlier decision before a higher court.

Whether the principles concerning the maintainability of cross-objections after withdrawal or dismissal of an appeal, stated in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy and Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Manohar, assisted the appellant in maintaining the present appeal.

The Court applied the doctrine of merger, under which the order of the Single Judge merged into the subsequent appellate order when the same dispute was adjudicated by the Division Bench after hearing the parties.

A decision of a coordinate Bench is binding on a subsequent coordinate Bench in respect of issues already decided; a later Bench cannot effectively sit in appeal over that decision, and any disagreement must be referred to a larger Bench.

The Court relied on Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. concerning merger and finality, and State through CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy, which cautions against coordinate Benches taking conflicting views.

The principles in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy and Hari Shankar Rastogi—the cross-objection may survive withdrawal or dismissal for default of the principal appeal—were held applicable only to that statutory and procedural context, and not to an appeal finally decided on merits after hearing the parties.

The Court found that the appellant’s claims for terminal benefits had already been adjudicated in MAT 969 of 2023.

Although the appellant’s separate appeal was pending, he was represented in ECL’s appeal and had an opportunity to seek analogous hearing or tagging of his appeal, but failed to do so.

The coordinate Bench’s order dated 29 January 2024 expressly dealt with and modified the relief granted by the Single Judge, including the interest payable on gratuity and the requirement of an indemnity bond.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s order merged into the Division Bench’s order, and the issues between the parties attained finality inter partes.

The authorities cited by the appellant were distinguishable because they concerned cross-objections surviving withdrawal or dismissal for default, whereas MAT 969 of 2023 had been finally decided after hearing the appellant.

Entertaining the present appeal would therefore require the Court to reconsider or effectively sit in appeal over the decision of a coordinate Bench, which was impermissible.

The Single Judge’s order had merged into that appellate order, which was binding between the parties.

The present appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.