Judgment Inter-Parties Prevails Over Subsequent Lateral Decisions Affirming Lower Pay Scales for Similarly Situated Employees

The State Government, via an order dated 28.04.2009, held that librarians completing nine years of service after 01.01.1996 were entitled to a lower pay scale of Rs. 4,500–7,000 instead of Rs. 5,000–8,000

Consequently, recovery instructions were issued in May 2009

The appellants challenged this in a previous round of litigation (SCA No. 10306/2009), where the learned Single Judge quashed the cancellation of the higher pay scale on 26.09.2017, noting it lacked a valid legal basis and was rooted in mere RTI information

The State did not appeal that decision. Despite this finality, the State again rejected the appellants' claims for restoration, leading to a fresh petition where the Single Judge directed the State to reconsider the matter by hearing the parties

The appellants filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the direction for "fresh consideration," arguing the issue was already settled inter-parties

1. Whether the State can reopen the issue of higher pay scale entitlement despite a prior final judgment between the same parties quashing the cancellation of such scale.

2. Whether the decision in a separate case (LPA No. 20/2026/Librarian scale interpretation) can override a judgment that has attained finality between these specific litigants.

The court applied the principle of Finality of Judgment and Res Judicata, emphasizing that a judgment rendered inter-parties which has attained finality binds the State and the subject litigants

It further relied on the precedent set in Prashantkumar Hasmukhray Jha (SCA No. 2955 of 2010), which affirmed the higher pay scale for librarians

a decision subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) CC No. 11597 of 2011

The Division Bench observed that the 2017 judgment quashing the State’s recovery order had never been appealed by the State, thus attaining finality

The court reasoned that applying a later, different interpretation to deny the appellants would effectively set aside a decade-old final order passed in their specific favour

Since the appellants' rights were established based on the Prashantkumar case, which the Supreme Court upheld, the State is legally barred from re-litigating or "reconsidering" the entitlement

The learned Single Judge erred in giving the State an opportunity to reopen the issue rather than simply directing compliance with the existing final order

The Court held that the State is bound by the prior judgment in SCA No. 10305 to 10307 of 2009 and directed the State to comply with said exercise, specifically having due regard to the Supreme Court's decision in SLP No. 11597 of 2011 which affirmed the entitlement

A request by the State to stay the operation of this judgment was refused