Satish Chander Sharma VS State Of Himachal Pradesh

In the instant case, High Court had allowed writ petitions and directed State to provide pension to retired employees of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited in terms of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999. Said decision was reversed by a two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court. Present petition was filed for the same relief contending that the two judges’ bench had ignored several binding precedents and was therefore, a decision rendered per incuriam.

Held, it is settled law that a decision rendered by Supreme Court, whether at the stage of special leave petition or post grant of leave while exercising jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution of India, cannot be assailed directly or collaterally under Art.32. Remedy of an aggrieved litigant would be to file for review and if the grievance persists, he may invoke curative jurisdiction subject to compliance of requirements of such jurisdiction.

It was found that elaborate reasons were given while allowing reversing the judgment of High Court. Merely because according to the petitioners the reasons given in the judgment while accepting the stand of the State may not be in sync with previous decisions, it cannot be said to be a judgment rendered per incuriam.

Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened. A litigant who is aggrieved by a decision rendered by Supreme 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 Art.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.(Para 21.5
22
23
29
30
32)