Judicial orders are binding; previous reasons cannot be reasserted for rejection.

The applicant, Swatilekha Behera, sought compassionate appointment after her father, Sri Subhash Chandra Behera, an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP), was medically invalidated due to Hemiplegia.

Her father initially applied for medical invalidation and compassionate employment for his daughter on July 31, 2017, which was rejected on August 2, 2017, as he was not declared medically invalid under a specific clause of the PP Circular.

Subsequently, he again requested a medical examination, was declared permanently unfit by a Medical Board on October 17, 2017, and was discharged on October 23, 2017.

He opted for benefits under the Employee Family Benefit Scheme (EFBS) but did not deposit the required amount.

The applicant's request for compassionate employment on August 8, 2018, was denied on September 7, 2018, citing no such provision in company rules.

The applicant then filed OA No. 67/2020 (arising from her father's OA No. 539/2019), which directed the respondents to reconsider her case for compassionate appointment, observing that the reliance on Clause 5.1.1 (denying compassionate appointment if EFBS was opted for) was misplaced given the applicant's father's unequal bargaining power and the fact that no EFBS benefit was actually received.

Despite this, the respondents again rejected her claim via an order dated July 5, 2022, repeating the old grounds that no provision existed for such appointment and that it would set a precedent.

This led to the current OA.

1. Whether the rejection order dated July 5, 2022, is contrary to the earlier order of this Bench dated April 5, 2022, in OA 67/2020.

2. Whether the respondents are estopped from rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment on grounds previously overruled by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial binding precedents, emphasizing that orders passed by a competent court must be obeyed and implemented without reservation, as established in AIIMS, New Delhi –vs- Sanjiv Chauturvedi & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2019, dated February 1, 2019), which held that a judicial order is binding unless set aside by a higher forum.

It also relied on The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board –vs- C.Muddaiah (Appeal (Civil) No. 4108 of 2007, dated September 7, 2007), which asserted that non-compliance with a court order leads to a breakdown of the Rule of Law.

Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle from T.R. Dhananjaya Vs. J. Vasudevan ([1995] 5 SCC 619) that once a matter attains finality, a respondent cannot go behind the orders by using rules to circumvent the result.

The Tribunal also invoked the principle from Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (AIR 1978 SC 851) that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh grounds.

Additionally, the observations from Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another regarding unequal bargaining power and unconscionable clauses in contracts were relevant from the earlier OA used in the analysis.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' rejection order of July 5, 2022, was a reiteration of the same grounds previously considered and overruled by the Bench in OA No. 67/2020.

In its prior decision, the Tribunal explicitly found that the applicant's father, due to his incapacitation and unequal bargaining power, could not be unfairly penalized for "opting" for the EFBS scheme when he had not actually received its benefits.

The arguments regarding "no such provision" and establishing a "precedent" were deemed to be old, obsolete grounds that had been put to naught by the previous order.

The Tribunal emphasized that a judicial order attains finality unless challenged and set aside by a higher forum.

The respondents' action of repeating the same grounds amounted to a disregard of a binding judicial directive, which the Supreme Court has unequivocally condemned as undermining the Rule of Law and impairing the administration of justice.

The argument that providing compassionate appointment would set a precedent was dismissed as insufficient to justify non-compliance with a final order.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents were legally estopped from revisiting and rejecting the claim on previously adjudicated grounds.

It quashed the impugned order dated July 5, 2022, holding that the applicant is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.

The respondents were directed to issue the compliance order within 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.