2007 (9) TMI 705 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the dismissal of the respondent-employee's claim by the Single Judge.
2. Entitlement to consequential benefits for the respondent-employee.
3. Validity of filing a fresh petition after dismissal of contempt petitions.
4. Compliance with the court's directions by the appellant-Board.

Summary:

1. Legality of the dismissal of the respondent-employee's claim by the Single Judge:
The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka set aside the Single Judge's order dismissing the respondent-employee's claim on the ground that contempt petitions filed by him were dismissed. The Division Bench directed the appellant-Board to implement the direction issued by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1848 of 1992 and disburse all consequential benefits to the writ-petitioner.

2. Entitlement to consequential benefits for the respondent-employee:
The respondent-employee was promoted as First Division Assistant in 1972 and challenged the seniority list published in 1974. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Board to reassign seniority and grant consequential benefits. Despite the Board's contention that it had complied with the order, the respondent claimed that arrears of salary were not paid. The Division Bench upheld the respondent's entitlement to consequential benefits, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, which emphasized that a binding judicial pronouncement cannot be overridden by legislative provisions.

3. Validity of filing a fresh petition after dismissal of contempt petitions:
The Division Bench found that the dismissal of contempt petitions did not preclude the respondent from filing a fresh substantive petition. The Court noted that the respondent had a legitimate grievance as the Board had not complied with the clear direction to grant consequential benefits. The fresh petition was deemed maintainable, and the Division Bench was justified in granting the relief sought.

4. Compliance with the court's directions by the appellant-Board:
The Supreme Court held that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it must be obeyed and implemented without reservation. The appellant-Board's argument that the respondent was not entitled to financial benefits under the 1973 Act was rejected. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with judicial directions undermines the rule of law. The appellant-Board was ordered to comply with the directions within twelve weeks and pay costs of Rs. 10,000.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Board, upheld the Division Bench's order, and reinforced the principle that judicial directions must be implemented in letter and spirit.