01Facts
Yamuna Prasad Gupta was appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin in 1986, regularised in 2013, and retired in 2016.
¶ 3–7, 9–12, 19–20He sought computation of his earlier service for pensionary benefits.
¶ 3–7, 9–12, 19–20The Tribunal directed the State to reconsider his entitlement in light of the benefit granted to Pratap Narain Pandey; the High Court upheld that decision on 30 August 2022.
¶ 3–7, 9–12, 19–20The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s SLP, while stating that any question of law was kept open.
¶ 3–7, 9–12, 19–20The State then sought review, relying on the Validation Act, 2021, and arguing that pre-regularisation service could not count for pensionary benefits.
¶ 3–7, 9–12, 19–2002Issues
i.1. Whether the review application was maintainable after the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s SLP.
¶ 8ii.2. Whether the question of law left open by the Supreme Court could be considered between the parties to the SLP, or only in proceedings involving other parties.
¶ 8, 21–2203Law Applied
Under Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, dismissal of an SLP without grant of leave does not attract the doctrine of merger; the judgment challenged remains operative, and the High Court’s review jurisdiction is not thereby lost.
¶ 14–17A speaking refusal of leave may have consequences for Article 141 and judicial discipline, but does not itself result in merger.
¶ 14–17The Supreme Court reiterated these principles in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376.
¶ 14–17Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, as discussed in Kunhayammed, bars High Court review after an appeal has been preferred or an SLP converted into an appeal.
¶ 14–17The State also relied on the Validation Act, 2021, which it said excluded irregular initial service from pension calculations; the Court noted that this ground had not been raised before the Tribunal, the writ court, or the Supreme Court.
¶ 2004Reasoning
Applying Kunhayammed and Khoday Distilleries, the Court held that the SLP had been dismissed without grant of leave and therefore the doctrine of merger did not apply; the review application was maintainable.
¶ 18, 22(i)It nevertheless concluded that the Supreme Court’s order, considered in the circumstances of the case, left no question of law open for reconsideration between these parties, although the issue could arise in future cases involving others.
¶ 21–22(ii)On the merits, the Court declined to entertain the Validation Act argument because it had not been raised at the earlier stages.
¶ 19–20It also relied on the parity with Pratap Narain Pandey and the fact that Gupta had already received the benefits pursuant to the writ court’s order.
¶ 19–2005Holding
The Court rejected the preliminary objection and held the review application maintainable, but determined that the question of law was not open between the parties to the SLP.
¶ 18, 22–24It dismissed the review application.
¶ 18, 22–24Original Court PDF
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue U.P. Lko. And OthersvsYamuna Prasad Gupta
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
