Case: K.A. Ansari  Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd

the appellants they were in the grade of Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the application with the following directions to the Indian Airlines:- "It is not being in dispute that when letter dated 23.4.2003 was issued petitioner being a first officer was in the pay scale of Rs.6200- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025.Accordingly, petitioner on ground would have to be placed in the said scale. As this court understands the law to be, if the cadre of a person is changed he would be entitled to an equivalent pay scale and in the absence of an equivalent pay scale would be entitled to be placed in the next above scale.Scale in which the respondent seeks to place the petitioner is Rs.5675-175-6550-200-7500- 225-7775-250-8025. The fact that the upper limit of the two scales i.e., 6200-175-6550- 200-7500-225-7775-250-8025, and Rs.5675- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025 is the same is immaterial.Application for directions is accordingly disposed of directing Indian Airlines to, after grounding, place the petitioner in the pay scale held by the petitioner i.e., Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025. In no case the petitioner be placed in a scale lower to the scale aforesaid. However, it is clarified that on grounding, if pay scale of Rs.6200-175-6550- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025 is not available, petitioner would have to be placed in the next higher grade." 12. Aggrieved thereby, the Indian Airlines filed intra-court appeal and as noted above, the Division Bench has reversed the said order. That is how the appellants have come up before us in this appeal.13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate that in the miscellaneous application, no new dispute requiring fresh adjudication had been raised. The relief claimed in the application was only in the nature of clarification to the extent that because of protection of the pay scales at the time of absorption in the Indian Airlines, the appellants were entitled for placement in an equivalent or higher pay scale. It was asserted that by way of clarification, learned Single Judge had merely reiterated and directed implementation of the directions issued while disposing of the writ petitions. It was also pleaded that the main order dated 11th ctober, 2004, having attained finality, the respondent is otherwise bound to comply with the same.15. Per contra, Mr. R.S. Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Airlines, supporting the order of the Division Bench, submitted that when the proceedings stood terminated on final disposal of the writ petitions, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to reopen the proceedings on filing of the miscellaneous application by the appellant in respect of the same subject matter.16. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. It needs little emphasis that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. (See: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. ((1987) 2 SCC 179 )). At the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage because the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. 17. Therefore, the question for consideration in the instant case is whether the miscellaneous application preferred by the first appellant could be said to be founded on a fresh cause of action?18. Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the terms of final order dated 11th October, 2004, the miscellaneous application could not be said to be founded on a separate or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of the aforenoted legal position viz. on termination of proceedings by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided fresh cause of action. It is manifest that in direction No. (ii), the learned Single Judge had clearly directed that the writ petitioners would be entitled `to be posted to a post in equivalent scale held by them when the letter dated 23rd April, 2003 was issued. The respondent -Indian Airlines was obliged to obey and implement the said direction. If they had any doubt or if the order was not clear; it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said order. Without challenging the said direction or seeking clarification, Indian Airlines could not circumvent the same on any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the Court, howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-implementation. In our opinion, in the miscellaneous application, no fresh relief, on the basis of a new cause of action, had been sought. It was an application filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, namely, placement in appropriate grade in which he was placed at the time when letter dated 23rd April, 2003, was issued. This was precisely done by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4th arch, 2005. Without examining those factual aspects of the matter, in our judgment, the Division Bench was in error in holding that after the disposal of the writ petitions, miscellaneous application was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the appellant was to approach the authorities and if his interpretation was not acceptable to them, then he could file a fresh writ petition.19. For the foregoing reasons, we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]we are of the opinion that keeping in view the terms of final order dated 11th October, 2004, the miscellaneous application could not be said to be founded on a separate or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of the aforenoted legal position viz. on termination of proceedings by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided fresh cause of action. It is manifest that in direction No. (ii), the learned Single Judge had clearly directed that the writ petitioners would be entitled `to be posted to a post in equivalent scale held by them when the letter dated 23rd April, 2003 was issued. The respondent -Indian Airlines was obliged to obey and implement the said direction. If they had any doubt or if the order was not clear; it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said order. Without challenging the said direction or seeking clarification, Indian Airlines could not circumvent the same on any ground whatsoever. Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the Court, howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-implementation. In our opinion, in the miscellaneous application, no fresh relief, on the basis of a new cause of action, had been sought. It was an application filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, namely, placement in appropriate grade in which he was placed at the time when letter dated 23rd April, 2003, was issued. This was precisely done by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4th arch, 2005. Without examining those factual aspects of the matter, in our judgment, the Division Bench was in error in holding that after the disposal of the writ petitions, miscellaneous application was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the appellant was to approach the authorities and if his interpretation was not acceptable to them, then he could file a fresh writ petition.