9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, subject, of course, to the applicability of principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. It is also trite that if a subsequent cause of action had arisen in the matter of implementation of a judgment a fresh writ petition may be filed, as a fresh cause of action has arisen. A review petition filed by Appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review. If the ACP Rules were applicable in the case of Respondent, it was the duty of Appellants to bring it to the notice of the High Court and ask for adjudication on the said question. But the effective order passed as against it could not have been sought to be nullified by raising a question which had not been raised in the writ petition. There might not have been an adjudication on a question which was relevant for determination of the issue directly or indirectly but in a case of this nature such a contention could not have been entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me applicable upon completion of five years of regular service. He became entitled thereto. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Director in the pay scale of ₹ 3000-4500. On 9.4.1996 he was drawing ₹ 4500/- and ₹ 100/- for personal pay. 3. Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (for short the Revised Rules ) came into force on 7.1.1998 in terms whereof the pay scales were revised. In terms of the said Rules, the pay scales of the posts of Deputy Director and Joint Director/ Project Director were said to have been revised from ₹ 3000-4500 and ₹ 3000-5000 to ₹ 10000-13900 and ₹ 10000-15200 respectively. Another rules known as Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 1998 (for short the ACP Rules ) came into force with effect from 7.1.1998 in terms whereof the pay scales of ₹ 3000-4500 and ₹ 4100-5300 were revised respectively to ₹ 10000-13900 and ₹ 12000- 375-16500 with effect from 1.1.1996. In terms of ACP Rules, the pay of Respondent was fixed at ₹ 12000-16500. By a letter dated 15.4.1998, Respondent asked for grant of a certificate of performance of higher respons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x the pay of the petitioner on the promotional post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 9.4.1996 on the next stage in the existing pay scale of ₹ 13500-17250 in accordance with Rule 4.4 (c)(i) of CSR Vol. I and to grant all other consequential benefits. 5. By an order dated 4.12.2000, the said writ petition was allowed directing: Accordingly we accept this writ petition and quash the impugned order. It is directed that the petitioner would be promoted in the present corresponding scale of ₹ 4100-5300 and on promotion will be given one increment. The arrears should be paid within four months from today. We deem it necessary to observe that the State should take necessary steps and remove the said anomaly that might arise in case of many other officers. A Special Leave Petition filed by Appellants there against was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 10.8.2001. In the meanwhile Respondent filed a Contempt Petition claiming a higher scale of pay corresponding to ₹ 14300-18300 wherein Appellants filed their reply stating that the order of the High Court had been complied with. It is not in dispute that the question as regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n vide order dated 4.12.2000, the same was ordered to be restored, dispute arose as to what is the corresponding scale to the said scale in the light of 5th Pay Commission. Learned Counsel for the parties are not clear as to what corresponding scale was being applied prior to its withdrawal. Stand of the Learned Counsel for the state is that corresponding scale should be ₹ 12000-16500/-, while according to the petitioner corresponding scale should be ₹ 13500-17250/-. Since Writ Petition has been disposed of and this issue was not adjudicated upon, strictly speaking the controversy raised cannot be the subject matter of the Review Petition. However, this issue will be decided on the next date of hearing. 9. We may at this juncture also take note of a letter issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department which is in the following terms: I am directed to invite your attention on the subject noted above and to say that it has come to the notice of the Finance Department that the various departments are not allowing replacement pay scales of Selection Grade (Pre- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. In State of Karnataka and Ors. v. C. Lalitha (2006)IILLJ93SC , this Court observed: A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. But, it is also well known that the judgment must be construed as if it had been rendered in accordance with law. It was noticed: In Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P.6 this Court held: SCC 768 par 8 A doubt arising from reading a judgment of the Court can be resolved by assuming that the judgment was delivered consistently with the provisions of law and therefore a course or procedure in departure from or not in conformity with statutory provisions cannot be said to have been intended or laid down by the Court unless it has been so stated specifically. 13. We, as at present advised, do not intend to go into the question as to whether the Revised Pay Rules or the ACP Rules will apply in the case of Respondent. The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance with law. What, however, cannot be denied or disputed that a dispute between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion. If a specific question whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review. Mr. Srivastava submitted that an application for review in effect and substance was an application for clarification of the judgment of the High Court. We do not think so. An application for clarification cannot be taken recourse to achieve the result of a review application. What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. [ Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. 2004(172)ELT446(SC) ] 16. If the ACP Rules were applicable in the case of Respondent, it was the duty of Appellants to bring it to the notice of the High Court and ask for adjudication on the said question. But the effective order passed as against it could not have been sought to be nullified by raising a question which had not been raised in the writ petition. There might not have been an adjudication on a question which was relevant for determination of the issue directly or indirectly but in a case of this nature such a contention could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, this Court times without number has laid down the law that such subsequent events may give rise to a fresh cause of action. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in National Housing Coop. Society Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 149 wherein following Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [2000]245ITR360(SC) a Division Bench of this Court opined that when a special leave petition is dismissed by a non-speaking order, the High Court could be moved for a writ for review. Submission of Mr. Jauhar, however, is that if a review petition is permitted to be filed and allowed, the same would nullify the order of this Court dismissing the special leave petition filed by Appellants. This may be so but we are of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case it is not necessary for us to make an endeavour to reopen a binding precedent particularly when no such action arises therefore. 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that this appeal has no merit and, thus, must be dismissed accordingly. However, the question as regards applicability of one or the other Rules if arises in future, the same ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
