Citing Improper Remedy, SC Dismissed The WP In "Pension Scheme Discontinuation" Matter

Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by retired officers of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, who sought pensionary benefits under the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999. The petitioners were aggrieved by the denial of pension as per the 1999 Scheme, which was discontinued in 2004, while an exception was made for those who had retired before the discontinuation date. The petitioners sought parity with those who retired earlier.

This same issue was earlier heard by the Apex Court in which the Himachal Pradesh High Court had granted similar petitions, and the state government was ordered to grant pension under the 1999 Scheme. But this ruling was overturned by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood. The current writ petition was made challenging the correctness of the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment, which was alleged to have ignored binding precedents and was therefore per incuriam. A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, observing the challenge to the previous judgment, referred the case to a three-Judge Bench.

The Supreme Court, in its order, held that the current writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was not maintainable since it practically attempted to challenge the correctness of an earlier finding of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra). The Court noted that the arguments made in the current petition were identical to those already decided in Rajesh Chander Sood, where the Supreme Court had upheld the State Government's action to terminate the 1999 Scheme with a cut-off date.

The Apex Court reiterated the principle of the finality of judicial decisions, stating that concluded litigation cannot be reopened through a writ petition under Article 32. While the Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that Rajesh Chander Sood was per incuriam for not considering binding precedents, however, the Apex Court held that "A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by this Court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition. But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice." it explicitly rejected this contention, stating that the earlier judgment had provided elaborate reasons for its decision and could not be said to have ignored any binding precedent.

Thus, the proper remedy for an aggrieved litigant against a Supreme Court decision is to file a review petition and thereafter a curative petition, not a writ petition under Article 32. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition.

Coram: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan