New Delhi, April 17: The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by three former employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited seeking pensionary benefits, ruling that the matter had already attained legal finality and could not be reopened.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan termed the petition “thoroughly misconceived” and asserted that the principle of finality is integral to the administration of justice. “Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which has concluded or attained finality cannot be reopened,” the court stated.
The petitioners had approached the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution in 2018, seeking pension under the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees Scheme, 1999, which was discontinued through a notification dated December 2, 2004. The scheme had retained benefits only for those who had opted for it and retired before the cutoff date.
The former employees argued that they should receive pension benefits at par with colleagues who retired prior to December 2, 2004, and asked the court to count their service from their joining date to superannuation.
However, the apex court observed that the issue had already been adjudicated in Rajesh Chander Sood & Ors vs State of Himachal Pradesh, a 2016 verdict that reversed a 2013 Himachal Pradesh High Court decision granting similar benefits.
“Having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant view that the present writ petition… is wholly misconceived,” the bench held. “The decision of this Court in the 2016 verdict is clearly binding on the petitioners.”
The court reiterated that once a matter is decided by the Supreme Court, any grievance must be pursued through the review or curative petition mechanism and not via a fresh writ petition. “If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice,” the judges warned.
Referring to its earlier rulings—including the Green View Tea and Industries vs Collector (2002) and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India (2011) cases—the bench noted that reopening settled matters undermines legal certainty.
The case adds to the top court’s consistent stance that repeated challenges to conclusive rulings erode public trust in the judicial system and delay closure for all parties.
