In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the application of the Doctrine of Merger, emphasizing that once leave is granted in a Special Leave Petition (SLP), the appellate decision supersedes and stands as the final ruling. The case, State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7130 / 2024), saw significant legal discourse on the principles of res judicata, the doctrine of merger, and the law of precedents.
Background of the Case
The controversy began with a Government Order dated July 20, 2001, which revised the pay scales of Headmasters of Junior High Schools in Uttar Pradesh based on the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations. However, the pay scales for Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) were not revised, leading to a disparity.
The Uttar Pradesh Vidhyalay Nirikshak Sangh and other respondents filed a writ petition in 2002, seeking parity in pay scales. The High Court ruled in their favor, directing the State to revise the pay scales. The State’s appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in a 2010 order that acknowledged the pay anomaly and directed the State to rectify it through a proposed policy. The State subsequently issued a Government Order in 2011, merging the posts of SDI/ABSA and DBSA into a new post of Block Education Officer with revised pay scales.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary legal issue revolved around whether the higher pay scale should be granted from July 1, 2001, or December 1, 2008. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the earlier date, but the State’s delayed appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, examined whether the Single Judge’s decision was consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2010 order and the doctrine of merger. The Court observed that once leave is granted in an SLP, the High Court’s judgment merges with the Supreme Court’s decision, making the latter the final binding order.
Important Observations
Justice Surya Kant, delivering the judgment, noted:
“Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked, the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification, or merely affirmation. Consequently, the High Court Judgment dated 06.05.2002 stood merged with the order dated 08.12.2010 of this Court.”
The Court criticized the High Court’s assumption that its previous decision remained enforceable independently of the Supreme Court’s order. It emphasized that the 2011 Government Order was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives and not in defiance of the High Court’s judgment.
Conclusion and Directions
The Supreme Court partially allowed the State’s appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s dismissal of the intra-court appeal and the Single Judge’s judgment in part. It upheld the 2011 Government Order, ensuring that the revised pay scales would apply notionally from January 1, 2006, and actually from December 1, 2008. The Court also protected retired employees from any recovery of excess payments made.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Appellants: State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
– Respondents: Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors.
– Judges: Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan
– Lawyers: The State was represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India and the Additional Advocate General. The respondents were represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Dushyant Dave and Ms. Shubhangi Tuli.
