SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 566, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 566 
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 9165-9172 of 2010 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service Law-Absorption - Of retrenched employees-
Under Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees 
C of Government or Public Corporations in Government Service 
Rules, 1991 - Writ petition by some of the employees 
seeking absorption under the 1991 Rules allowed and that 
order confirmed upto Supreme Court - In the pending writ 
D petitions which was filed by the present appellants (other 
employees of the respondent-Corporation), benefits similar 
to that granted in other writ petition, sought- Single Judge of 
High Court allowed the petition - Division Bench of High 
Court questioning the ratio of the judgment passed by the 
E Single Judge of the High Court passed in the other writ 
petition, set aside the order in the present case- On appeal, 
held: When the controversy had been put to rest by this court 
in the earlier judgment, the Division Bench of High Court 
was not right in entering into the analysis of the ratio of the 
F earlier judgment and discussion on binding precedent- This 
kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided 
as it is contrary to the principles o( judicial discipline - This 
kind of situation also procrastinates the litigations and is 
extremely expensive and time-consuming - Appellants-
G employees are entitled to the benefit of absorption
- They 
shall be absorbed as per their seniority - In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, it is directed that they are paid 
40% of the back wages - Uttar Pradesh Absorption of 
Retrenched Employees of Government or Public 
H 
566
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
567 
Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 -
A 
Constitution of India, 1950- Art. 141 - Precedent - Judicial 
Discipline. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It was absolutely inappropriate on the part B 
of the High Court to go in search of ratio of the judgment 
rendered by the Single Judge on the earlier occasion, 
when the controversy had really been put to rest by this 
court. The Division Bench should not have entered the c 
arena which was absolutely unwarranted. The decision 
rendered by this Court inter se parties was required to 
be followed in the same fact situation. When the factual 
matrix was absolutely luminescent and did not require 
any kind of surgical dissection, there was no necessity o 
to take a different view. This kind of situation 
procrastinate the litigations and the litigants and is 
extremely expensive and time consuming. This kind of 
unnecessary enthusiastic quest should be avoided. It 
is because it is contrary to the principles of judicial E 
discipline. [Para 16] [580-H; 581-A-C,F] 
Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. 
Pamarti Venkayamma 
2009 (3) SCR 574: 2009 (4) SCC 244; Sundarjas Kanya/al 
Bhatija v. Collector 1989 (3) SCR 405: 1989 (3) SCC 396; 
F 
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others 2008 (15) SCR 
331: 2008 (10) sec 1 - relied on. 
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & 
Others 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517: 2003 (2) SCC 111; Delhi G 
Administration (Now N. C. T of Delhi)
v. Manohar Lal 2002 
(2) Suppl. SCR 1: 2002 (7) SCC 222 - referred t<?. 
2. There is no reason that the appellants should not 
reap the benefits of absorption and, accordingly, it is 
1-1 
directed that they shall be absorbed by the State
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A Government as per their seniority and be given the 
benefit of increments. They will be entitled to their 
seniority as per the prevalent rules. If anyone has been 
retired from service, he shall get the retiral benefits 
B 
inclusive of pension. [Para 18] [582-C,D] 
3. As regards payment of back wages, regard being 
had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the cause 
of justice would be best ·subserved if each of the 
appellant is paid 40% of the back wages, and it is so 
C directed. [Para 19] [582-F-G] 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference 
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to. 
Para 9 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 1 
referred to. 
Para 9 
2009 (3) SCR 574 
relied on. 
Para 16 
1989 (3) SCR 405 
relied on. 
Para 17 
2008 (15) SCR 331 
relied on. 
Para 17 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
9165-9172 of2010 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2010 of the 
F High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Speciar Appeal 
(defective) Nos. 1034, 1158, 1068 and 1055 of2009 and 114, 
602, 603 and 195 of 2010. 
WITH 
G 
Civil Appeal Nos. 10567, 10177-10179 and 9142-9144 
of2010. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 991, 2293, 3212, 7117, 7119, 7838, 
7109,8335,8345,8672,8687,9731, 10450, 10546, 10549, 
H 10550 and 10688 of 2011.
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
569 
Civil Appeal Nos. 201, 208, 209, 2151, 2152, 2460, 6152, A 
6153,6154,6155,6156,6157,6175,6720,6897,7864,7893, 
7894, 7895,7896,7897,8517,8682,8764,6398-6403and 
7861-7863 of2012. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 295, 296, 304, 305, 306, 444, 620, 
B 
664, 1507, 1508, 5343, 6716, 5344 and 311-313 of2013 
Civil Appeal Nos. 7867 and 7868 of2015. 
Amrendra Saran, Manoj Prasad, Santosh KumarTripathi, 
Rohit Singh, Sada Shiv Gupta, Ashutosh Dubey, K. C. 
C 
Vishwakarma, Sarthak Choudhary, D. P. Singh Yadav, Umesh 
Kumar, Sullabh Tiwari, Balraj Dewan, Dr. Vinod K. Tewari, 
Pramod Tiwari, Pankaj Kumar Singh, K. L. Janjani, Mohan 
Pandey, Yatish Mohan, Pooja, Anand Bali, E. C. Vidya Sagar, 
D 
T. Anamika, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Sun ii Kumar Jain, Pawan 
Shree Agrawal, Kaushik Chaudhary, Akarsh Garg, Rajesh 
Sharma, Shalu Sharma, Ashok Kumar Gupta II, Ashok K. 
Mahajan, Dileep Tandon, R. B. Phookan, Neha T. Phookan, 
Shailesh Madiyal, Manoj Prasad, Rakesh U. Upadhyay, P. S. 
E 
Deoghar for the Appellants. 
Reena Singh, AAG, Sakshi Mebley, Alka Sinha, D. K. 
Goswami, Anuvrat Sharma, Ravindra Kumar, Santosh Kumar 
Tripathi, Umesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, T. Anamika, Rakesh 
F 
Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
Appellant-in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) N0.1833 
of2013 and S.L.P.(C) N0.19001 of2013. 
G 
2. The U.P. State Cement Corporation Limited (for short, 
'the Corporation') was
wound up on 81h December, 1999. 
H
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A There is no dispute about the fact that the said Corporation is 
an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the 
Constitution of India. It is the admitted position that in the State 
of U.P. existed a set of rules, namely, the Uttar Pradesh 
Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government or Public 
B Corporations in Government Service Rules, 1991 (for short, 
'the 1991 Rules'). After the Corporation was wound up, 
Shailendra Kumar Pandey and some others, who were the 
employees of the Corporation, filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ 
Petition No.36644 of 2003, seeking absorption under the 
C aforesaid Rules. 
3. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition 
referred to Rule 3(i) of the Rules that deals with the rights of 
the retrenched employees. He referred to the dictionary clause 
D engrafted in Rule 2(c), which reads as follows: 
"2(c} Retrenched employees means a person who was 
appointed on the post under the Government or a public 
corporation on or before Oct., 1, 1986 in accordance with 
E 
the procedure laid down for recruitment to the post and 
was continuously working in any post under the 
Government or such Corporation up to the date of his 
retrenchment. Due to reduction in, or winding up of, any 
establishment of the Government or the Corporation, ·as 
F 
. the case may be and in respect of whom a certificate of 
being a retrenched employee has been issued by this 
appointing authority." 
After
reproducing the said provision, the Writ Court 
G referred to th~ order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition 
No.17195 of 1998, and reproduced the relevant paragraphs 
from the decision rendered therein and, thereafter, took note 
of the fact that the said order had been affirmed in Special 
Appeal No.540 of 1999, and further stood confirmed by this 
H . Court, for the appeal preferred before this Court did not meet
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
571 
[DIPAKMISRA, J.] 
with success. The learned Single Judge also referred to the A 
order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 38534 
of 2001 on 201h September, 2003, wherein· a direction was 
issued to the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision. 
After the said direction was issued, the Principal Secretary 
(Personnel), Government of U.P., rejected the claims of the B 
petitioners therein on the foundation that the Personnel 
Department did not have the authority to declare the employees 
as retrenched employees and to take a decision for their 
absorption. The learned Single Judge dealt with various 
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and C 
also cogitated upon the U. P. Absorption of Retrenched 
Employees of the State Government/Public Sector 
Corporation in Government Service (Recession) Rules, 2003 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003 Rules') and, eventually 0 
came to hold passed that the Absorption Rules, 1991 were 
rescinded on 81h April, 2003 and much prior to that the 
employees had represented and the respondents were 
required to consider their rights for absorption within two 
months and regard being had to the rule position, it could safely E 
be held that the rights of the employees had crystallized much 
before the Rules were rescinded. After so holding, the learned 
Single Judge proceeded to state thus:-
'The respondents cannot take the benefit of the delay F 
caused by them in
considering petitioners application. 
The two months period granted by this Court on 
20.09.2002 expired on 20.11.2002. The delay made by 
the Secretary (Karmik)Anubhag-2, Government of U.P. in 
deciding the matter, cannot be a ground to refuse the due G 
consideration, required to be made by this Court before 
the rescission of the Rules. The Rescission of Rules will, 
therefore, not come in the way of petitioners in claiming 
the absorption. 
H 
The writ petition, as such, allowed. The impugned order
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
dated 30.04.2003 passed by the Special Secretary 
(Karmik) Anubhag-3, Govt. of U .P., Lucknow (Annexure-
10 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondents are 
directed to absorb the petitioners in any vacancy on 
Group-C post outside the purview of Public Service 
B 
Commission within a period of two months from the date 
of production of a certified copy of this order." 
4. The aforesaid order came to be assailed before a 
Special Bench in Special Appeal No.618 of2004. The Division 
C Bench referred to its order dated 141h October, 2004, passed 
in State of U.P. through its Secretary and Another vs. 
Mukund Lal Singh1 which had faced dismissal and 
accordingly passed the following order: 
o 
"In view of the averments made in Ground Nos.12 and 13 
of the Special Appeal, the appeal is bound to be dismissed 
as the decision of this Court, in Writ Petition No.17195 of 
1998 was challenged not only before the Division Bench 
in Special Appeal but was also before the Apex Court and 
E 
the judgment remained intact. 
In view of the above, considering the averments made in 
the affidavit filed in support of the application under section 
5 of the Limitation Act condonation of delay, we condone 
F 
the delay in filing the appeal but dismiss the Special 
Appeal on merit. 
G 
Mst. Kirtika Singh appears for the respondent. 
However, the judgment and the order of the learned Single 
Judge shall be given effect to strictly in accordance
with 
Rule 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched 
Employees of Government or Public Corporations in 
Government Service (Rescission) Rules, 2003." 
H 
'S.P.A. No.869 of 2004 decided on 14 10.2004
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
573 
5. The said order came to be assailed in Civil Appeal A 
No.782 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 31•1 January, 
2008, passed the following order: 
"Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
B 
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not 
inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 
The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 
It is made clear that the directions in the order dated 14th C 
October, 2004, passed in Special Appeal No.869 of2004 
that the order of the learned Single Judge shall be given 
effect to strictly in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Uttar 
Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of . 
Government or Public Corporations in Government D 
Service Rules, 1991, shall apply in all these appeals. 
I.A. No. 7 is permitted to be withdrawn to take such remedy 
as is available to the applicant under law. I.A. No.5 is 
permitted to be withdrawn." 
E 
It is apt to note here, thereafter, certain issues arose before 
this Court in contempt petitions with regard to the grant of 
salary component. We shall refer ~o the said facet at a later 
stage. 
F 
6. When the matter stood thus, and in all possibility, all the 
affected employees of the Corporation felt relieved, inasmuch 
as the controversy had travelled to this Court and was put to 
rest. The writ petitions which were preferred in the year 2001 
G 
were still pending before the High Court and tile expectation 
of the petitioners
therein was that the similar benefits shall 
enure to them, for the writ petitions instituted on later dates 
had been disposed. As is demonstrable, the learned Single 
Judge following the judgment of the Special Bench, as well as 
H
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A of this Court, allowed the writ petition. 
7. On appeals being preferred by the State of U.P., the 
Division Bench by the impugned judgment, rather a longish 
one, adverted to many an aspect and posed the core question 
B which is as follows:-
"The question still remains as to what is the ratio of 
Shailendra Kumar Pandey's case (supra), which was 
decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide its 
c 
judgment and order dated 5th January, 2004 and affirmed 
in special appeal by Division Bench of this Court and in 
civil appeal by the Apex Court." 
8. The Division Bench after posing the question, 
0 
proceeded to state that:-
E 
F 
G 
H 
"As noticed above, the learned Single Judge in its 
judgment dated 5th January, 2004, in Shailendra Kumar 
Pandey's case (supra) noticed that the 1991 Rules were 
rescinded on 8th April, 2003, but a view was taken that 
since the retrenched employees fell within the category of 
the 1991 Rules and the respondents were required to 
consider their rights for absorption within two months under 
the order of this Court passed on 20th September, 2002, 
the respondents cannot take the benefit of delay caused 
by them in considering the claim of the writ petitioners. It 
was also held that their rights crystallised much before 
the rules were rescinded. The learned Single Judge further 
held that two months period expired on 20th November, 
2002 and the delay caused by Secretary (Karmik},
Government of U.P. cannot be a ground to refuse due 
consideration required to be made by this Court before 
rescission of the rules. The above observation of the 
learned Single Judge makes it clear that basis of the 
direction by the Court was non compliance of the earlier
-· 
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
575 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
directions dated 201h September, 2002 within the time A 
allowed and that was the reason for direction to the State 
Government to consider the case of absorption. The said 
directions of the learned Single Judge dated 6th January, 
2004, were issued on the special facts of that case. 
As noted above, the special appeal filed against the 
judgment and order dated 5th January, 2004 was 
dismissed following earlier decision of the Division Bench 
in Special Appeal No. 869 of 2004. The order passed by 
B 
the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.869 C 
of 2004 has also been quoted above by which decision 
the special appeal was dismissed with direction that the 
judgment of learned Single Judge be given effect to strictly 
in accordance with Rule 3 of the 1991 Rules. While 
dismissing the special appeal on 14th October, 2004, the D 
Division Bench had not adverted to the consequence of 
the Rescission Rules, 2003. The Division Bench in the 
aforesaid judgment having not considered or expressed 
any opinion with regard to the Rescission Rules, 2003, 
no such ratio can be read in the aforesaid judgment that E 
despite Rescission Rules 2003 the right of retrenched 
employees, who could not be absorbed till 8th April, 2003, 
still subsists and can be enforced by a writ petition." 
9. Thereafter, the Division Bench referred to the authority 
F 
in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana· Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. 
and
Others2 and Delhi Administration (Now NCT of Delhi) 
vs. Manohar Laf which deal with binding nature of a judgment 
and thereafter, it referre.d to the decision in Special Appeal 
No.233 of 2007 decided on 15th March, 2007, wherein the G 
1991 Rules and 2003 Rules were considered and opined thus: -
. 
"A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.233 
of 2007 (Subhash Prasad vs. State of UP and Others, 
---------
2 (2003) 2 sec 111 
'(2002) 7 sec 222 
H
576 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 9 S.C.R. 
decided on 15.3.2007) had considered the similar issues 
pertaining to right under the 1991 Rules and the effect of 
the Rescission Rules 2003. The appellant in the aforesaid 
case had filed a writ petition for a direction for absorption 
under the 1991 Rules. The writ petition was dismissed 
by the learned Single Judge against which special appeal 
was filed. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment the 
Division Bench noted Rule 3(1) of the Rescission Rules 
2003. The argument of the learned counsel for the State 
that after the Rescission Rules 2003 came into force the 
right under the 1991 Rules came to an end was also 
noticed. The Division Bench held that at the highest the 
applicant has to be considered like any other employee 
but the said right came to an end when the rules were 
rescinded in 2003." 
10. The Division Bench expressed the view that decision 
in Subhash Prasad (supra) was squarely applicable and 
governed the field. It also referred to the decision in W.P. 
No.51252 of 2006 [Prabhu vs. State of U.P. and Others), 
E wherein the learned Single Judge had opined that merely 
because some incumbents had been offered appointment 
under the cover of the orders passed by the Court, it will not 
improve the case of the petitioners therein as two wrongs would 
F 
not make a thing right. Endorsing the said view, the Division 
Bench proceeded to :;tate that:-
G 
H 
" ....... We having found that the right
of consideration for 
absorption under the 1991 Rules having come to an end 
after the Rescission Rules 2003, no mandamus can be 
issued for enforcing the said right. However, it is relevant 
to note that under the Rescission Rules 2003 as well as 
under the 2009 Act certain benefits have been provided 
to the retrenched employees even after 81h April, 2003. 
The retrenched employees, i.e writ petitioners are fully 
entitled to take the benefit of the aforesaid Rule 3(ii) of
, 
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
577 
the Rescission Rules 2003 and Section 3(2) of the 2009 A 
Act. 
The appeals filed by the retrenched employees 
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in Prabhu 
Nath Prasad's case deserves to be and are hereby B 
dismissed in view of the foregoing discussions. Thus all 
the appeals of Group-I, Group-Ill and Group-IV are partly 
allowed setting aside the directions issued by the learned 
Single Judge for absorbing the writ petitioners. However, 
it is directed that retrenched employees of U.P. Cement C 
Corporation, Bhadohi Woollen Mills and U.P. State Sugar 
Corporation shall be entitled for the benefits as 
contemplated under Rule 3(ii) of the Rescission Rules 
2003 <!nd saved under Section 3(2) of the 2009 Act on 
Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts." 
D 
11. We have heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. Manoj 
Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sun ii 
Kumar Verma, the appellant in-person in Civil Appeal No.9165 
of 2010 and Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate E 
General for the State of U. P. 
12. We have already adumbrated the facts in extenso to 
understand the nature of controversy. It is evident from the 
narration of the factual score that Mukund Lal Singh, who had 
F 
approached the High Court in 2004, did not stand on a better 
footing than the present appellants herein. The learned Single 
Judge had treated him as a retrenched employee on similar 
facts. The Special
Bench had declined to interfere and this 
Court, while dismissing the civil appeals, as the order would G 
clearly show, had directed to give effect to the order passed in 
Special Appeal No.869 of 2004, strictly in accordance with 
Rule 3(1) of the 1991 Rules and it was eloquently stated that 
the Rule would apply to the batch of appeals. Needless to 
emphasise, the writ petition preferred by the present appellants H
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A should have been listed along with the writ petition preferred 
by Mukund Lal Singh and Shaiendra Kumar Pandey, but, 
unfortunately, it did not so happen. 
13. Be it stated, there had already been interpretation of 
B 2003 Rules by the learned Single Judge which has been 
affirmed up to this Court. In such a situation, we really fail to 
fathom how the Division Bench could have thought of entering 
into the analysis of the ratio of the earlier judgment and 
discussion on binding precedents. That apart, the Division 
C Bench should have also kept itself alive to the direction issued 
by this Court in the civil appeals. 
14. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note 
what followed thereafter. After the directions were issued by 
o this Court, Contempt Petition No.255 of 2008 in Civil Appeal 
No. 782 of 2006 and certain other contempt petitions were filed. 
This Court issued directions from time to time as the employees 
were not absorbed. Thereafter, they were absorbed and this 
Court directed for payment of salary component and certain 
E other consequential benefits from the date of retrenchment. 
This Court referred to the order passed by the State 
Government and reproduced the same. It is extracted 
hereur1der:-
F 
"Hon'ble Governor has been pleased to accord its 
sanction to extend following facilities/benefits to the 
petitioners of Contempt Petition No.255/2008-Mukund Lal 
Singh versus Atul Kumar Gupta,
Secretary, Government 
of Uttar Pradesh; Contempt Petition No.256/2008-
G 
Shailendra Kumar Pandey and others versus Kunwar 
Fateh Bahadur Singh and others; and Contempt Petition 
No.15/2009 (Civil Appeal No. 782/2006) -
Mohd. 
Shakiluddin and others versus Shri Atul Kumar Gupta and 
others and other connected Civil Appeals pending before 
H 
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as those petitioners
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
579 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
who are covered by the Judgment and ordar of the Hon'ble A 
Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008 and in furtherance to 
government order No.3504/77-1-2009/13(Cement)/2004 
dated 3.12.2009. 
1) All the petitioners of the aforesaid Contempt Petitions B 
and all others who are covered by the Judgment of the 
Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008, will be deemed 
to have been absorbed in the government service with 
effect from the date of their retrenchment by the Uttar 
Pradesh State Cement Corporation Limited. 
C 
2) If it is not possible to absorb Petitioners of the aforesaid 
Contempt Petitions and all others who are covered by the 
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.1.2008, 
on the posts on which they were working in the Uttar o 
Pradesh Cement Corporation Limited on the date of their 
retrenchment, then they be protected in the pay scale for 
the post on which they are being absorbed, in such a 
manner that their salaries are closest to the salaries which 
they were withdrawn on the date of their retrenchments 
E 
from the Corporation. It was further decided in the meeting 
that if the last salary drawn by them was higher than the 
salary being given to them after their absorption in the 
government service, then such a different be considered 
as personal pay and such personal pay be given to them 
F 
from the date of their retrenchment. But before doing so, 
an undertaking must be obtained from the
concerned 
personnel that he has not already received any other 
benefits, salary, retrenchment compensation etc. from the 
Official Liquidator, for the period after their retrenchment G 
from parent department. If any personnel has already 
availed any benefit from the official liquidator for the period 
after his retrenchment, then same will be adjusted from 
the arrears of the said personnel. Affidavit of undertaking H 
given by the personnel should also be got verified from
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
the official liquidator. 
B 
c 
D 
3) Besides above, these personnel will also be entitled to 
added increment and arrears with effect from the date of 
their retrenchment. 
4) These benefits are being extended to all the Petitioners 
of the aforesaid Contempt Petitions and all others who 
are covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court 
dated 31.1.2008, in accordance with the directions given 
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, these benefits 
would not have been available to them in normal course. 
It is also pertinent to mention here that no other personnel 
will be entitled to such benefits in future. 
5) Services rendered by these personnel in U.P. Cement 
Corporation Ltd., i.e., before their absorption in 
government service, will not be considered for the purpose· 
of their pensionary benefits." 
15. After reproducing the said order, this Court noted that 
E as the order had been substantially complied with the direction 
given by the High Court and the order passed by this Court, 
there is no valid reason to continue with the contempt 
proceedings. Additionally, this Court added, which we may 
F 
profitably-reproduce:-
G 
"If the petitioners are not satisfied with the fixation of their 
pay etc., they may make representation( s) to the competent 
authority. Such representation shall be disposed of by 
the concerned authority within next two months by passing 
speaking order. If the petitioners are not
satisfied with 
the order passed on their representation(s), then they shall 
be free to avail appropriate legal remedy." 
16. In the obtaining factual matrix, we are disposed to think 
H that it was absolutely inappropriate on the part of the High Court 
to go in search of ratio of the judgment rendered by the Single
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA v. STATE OF U.P. 
581 
[DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
Judge on the earlier occasion, when the controversy had really A 
been put to rest by this court. The Division Bench, we are 
disposed to think, should not have entered the arena which 
was absolutely unwarranted. The decision rendered by this 
Court inter se parties was required to be followed in the same 
fact situation. When the factual matrix was absolutely B 
luminescent and did not require any kind of surgical dissection, 
there was no necessity to take a different view. Needless to 
say, this kind of situation procrastinate the litigations and the 
litigants, as has been stated, though in a different context in 
Koppisetty Venkat Ratnam v. Pamarti Venkayamma4 is C 
extremely expensive and time consuming. 
17. In this regard, a few lines from Sundarjas Kanya/al 
Bhatija v. Cottecto~ is worth reproducing:-
D 
" ... One must remember that pursuit of the law, however 
glctmorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench. Ina 
multi-Judge court, the Judges are bound by precedents 
and procedure. They could use their discretion only when 
there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no 
E 
authority." 
We have highlighted this aspect as we intend to 
ingeminate that this kind of unnecessary enthusiastic quest 
should be avoided. It is because it is contrary to the principles . F 
of judicial discipline. In this regard reference· to Official 
Liquidator v. Dayananq and others6 would be apt. In the 
said
ruling, it has been observed thus:-
"There have been several instances of different Benches G 
of the High Courts not following the judgments/orders of 
coordinate and even larger Benches. In some cases, the 
High Courts have gone to the extent of ignoring the law 
• (2009) 4 sec 244 
'(1989) 3 sec 396 
• (2008) 1 o sec 1 
H
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
laid down by this Court without any tangible reason. 
Likewise, there have been instances in which smaller 
Benches of this Court have either ignored or bypassed 
the ratio of the judgments of the larger Benches including 
the Constitution Benches. These cases are illustrative of 
B 
non-adherence to the rule of judicial discipline which is 
sine qua non for sustaining the system." 
18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find no reason 
that the appellants herein should not reap the benefits of 
c absorption and, accordingly, it is directed that they shall be 
absorbed by the State Government as per their seniority and 
be given the benefit of increments, within eight weeks hence. 
I ( 
Needless to say, they will be entitled to their seniority as per 
the prevalent rules. If anyone has been retired from service, 
\ 
D he shall get the retiral benefits inclusive of pension. 
19. At this juncture, the question arises as to what 'amount 
should be paid towards back wages. In this context, our 
attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court in 
E contempt proceeding. However, after some debate, learned 
counsel for the appellants left it to the discretion of this Court. 
Ms. Reena Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for 
the State vehemently opposed with regard to grant of any back 
wages. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on 
F this score and regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we think that the cause of justice would be best 
sub-served if each of the appellant is paid 40% of the back 
wages, and it is so directed. It shall be computed as per our 
directions issued hereinbefore within a period of twelve weeks 
G hence and be paid to the appellants. 
21. The aforesaid appeals which relate to U.P. State 
Cement Corporation Limitea are allowed accordingly. There 
shall be no order as to costs. 
H 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals allowed.