The Delhi High Court has held that only the Supreme Court can direct that its decisions will not be cited as precedent. Lower courts cannot place that restriction on their own rulings, the Court said, because it could lead to similarly placed litigants being treated differently.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar made the observation while upholding a Central Administrative Tribunal ruling in favour of a retired scientist of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). The Bench added a caveat on his promotion to the grade of Scientist D.
Background
Om Prakash was working as Scientist B in the MOEFCC. He was granted in situ promotion as Scientist C under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) with effect from 2 July 2007, and retired as Scientist C on 30 June 2013.
He approached the Tribunal seeking ante-dating of his Scientist C promotion to 1 January 2006 and in situ promotion as Scientist D from 1 January 2010. The Tribunal relied on an MOEFCC Office Memorandum dated 13 August 2013, which listed him as due for ante-dating on both counts. On 29 January 2024 it allowed his plea and directed consequential benefits, including arrears of pay.
The MOEFCC and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) then jointly challenged the Tribunal’s ruling before the High Court.
Arguments
Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC, appeared for the Union of India. He argued that the recruitment rules expressly bar retrospective promotion and that FCS promotion is strictly merit-based, requiring ACR screening, an interview and approval by the competent authority. The respondent’s entitlement to Scientist D was “never assessed,” he submitted. He further argued that the respondent could not rely on the Nakul Dev ruling, since the Tribunal there had said its decision was not to be cited as a precedent.
Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, appearing for the respondent, argued that the Ministry could not take advantage of its own wrong in delaying consideration. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. S.K. Murti and this Court’s ruling in Nakul Dev. He submitted that, in Nakul Dev, the interview requirement was waived for employees who had retired.
Court’s Findings on the “No Precedent” Caveat
The Bench noted that the facts in Nakul Dev “practically mirror” the present case. It then examined the Tribunal’s caveat in that case, which the High Court had approved.
“Though it is often done, we have serious doubts as to whether any Court, other than the Supreme Court, is empowered to enter a caveat, having delivered a judicial decision, that the decision would not be cited as a precedent in any other case,” the Court observed.
The Bench drew a distinction between such a caveat and a statement that a decision rests on peculiar facts. It held that “Such an observation cannot operate as a proscription, even impliedly, against the decision being cited as a precedent in any other case.”
Referring to NBCC (India) Ltd v. State of West Bengal, the Court said that the distinction between decisions that operate only as decisions and those that operate as precedents “is unique to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
It cautioned that if lower courts “arrogate, to themselves, the authority to clarify that decisions rendered by them would not be treated as binding precedents, it could result in a situation in which litigants, who may be similarly circumstanced on facts, would receive different treatments from the Court.”
Promotion Claims
On Scientist C, the Bench held that the Tribunal’s direction was entirely covered by S.K. Murti and Nakul Dev. It noted that the respondent had in fact been assessed and promoted to that grade.
On Scientist D, the Court held that S.K. Murti would not apply because the respondent was never assessed. It said that assessment “cannot be dispensed with, as it is a mandate of the FCS itself.”
The Court accepted that the respondent could no longer be interviewed after his retirement. However, it found that it “would be wholly unjust, inequitable and unfair to deny the said benefit to the respondent, especially as the delay in consideration of the respondent for in situ promotion as Scientist D under the FCS is wholly attributable to the MOEFCC.” Following Nakul Dev, the Bench dispensed with the interview. It noted that the respondent had been interviewed and found suitable for Scientist C only four years earlier.
Outcome
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, with one caveat. The respondent’s promotion as Scientist D from 1 January 2010 will depend on his being found suitable under the parameters in the DOPT OM dated 9 November 1998, except for the interview. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. v. Om Prakash
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5071/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar
Date: 15 October 2026
