Mere liberty to pass a reasoned order does not attract the doctrine of merger.

The respondent, Brij Bhushan Singh Dangi, filed a writ petition (WP No. 1618/2017) challenging adverse remarks made in his service book by the Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 05.02.2026, quashing the remarks and directing the State to grant the second higher pay scale and revised retirement benefits based on an order dated 07.02.2015.

The Single Judge relied on the precedent set in Sukhdev Singh Chauhan v. State of M.P. (WP(S) No. 1080/2007).

The State appealed, contending that the Sukhdev Singh judgment had merged into an order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 5993/2014, which granted the State liberty to pass a reasoned order.

The State admitted it never complied with the Supreme Court’s direction to pass such an order.

1. Whether the judgment in Sukhdev Singh Chauhan stood merged with the Supreme Court's order in SLP (Civil) No. 5993/2014, thereby losing its precedential value.

2. Whether the State could claim the benefit of the Doctrine of Merger despite non-compliance with the Supreme Court's specific directions.

The Court applied the Doctrine of Merger as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359, which establishes that a simple dismissal of an SLP or a dismissal without a speaking order does not result in the merger of the lower court's order into the Supreme Court's order.

The Court further relied on Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 and V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 5 SCC 373, which clarify that under Article 136, unless leave is granted and an appeal is decided on merits, the doctrine of merger does not apply, and a summary dismissal does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141.

The Division Bench found the appellants' contention regarding the merger of the Sukhdev Singh judgment to be "misconceived".

The Court noted that the appellants failed to produce the actual Supreme Court order and relied only on "Ground No. C," which indicated that the Supreme Court had merely granted liberty to the State to decide the matter via a reasoned order rather than setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Since the State conceded that it never passed the reasoned order as permitted, the original judgment remained binding. Integrating the Kunhayammed principles, the Court reasoned that since the SLP did not result in a reversal or modification of the High Court's view, and since the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 was not converted into an appellate jurisdiction followed by a judgment on merits, the original precedent relied upon by the Single Judge remained valid and operative.

Because the State failed to comply with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court and failed to show that the Sukhdev Singh judgment was ever set aside, the Single Judge’s reliance on that precedent was correct.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming the direction to the State to revise the respondent's pay scale, pension (PPO/GPO), and pay all consequential arrears.