Litigants Approaching Court After Prolonged Delay Cannot Demand Similar Relief As A Right Solely On Others’ Success: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed petitions by terminated government school teachers seeking directions similar to those granted to other employees, holding that such relief could not be sought through belated parity-based claims. The Court declined to entertain the request for a mandamus to consider representations, noting that it would effectively reopen disputes that had already attained finality. It further observed that employees who approach the court after a prolonged delay, only after seeing others succeed in comparable matters, cannot automatically claim the same benefit as a matter of course.
The proceedings arose from Special Leave Petitions filed by former primary school teachers whose appointments dated 12 March 1991 were linked to a recruitment process initiated to fill backlog vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes. After allegations of irregularities, their services were terminated, followed by multiple rounds of litigation before the High Court of Gujarat, the Primary Education Tribunal, and appellate forums. Several orders relating to termination, reinstatement, and review were passed between 1993 and 2011, culminating in dismissal of their challenges by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The present petitions were instituted with reference to a later High Court order dated 04 March 2021, which had merely directed consideration of a representation made by a serving teacher regarding higher grade pay scales. The petitioners sought similar directions in their own cases, contending that the benefit of the said order ought to be extended to them. The State opposed the petitions, pointing to the finality of earlier adjudications and the absence of any subsisting vacancies or live service claims.
The Supreme Court of India observed, "Having considered the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present Special Leave Petitions." It stated, "Such a course cannot be granted by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly when it does not arise from an adjudication of the petitioners’ rights and liabilities on merits."
On the nature of the relief sought, the Court recorded, "The present Special Leave Petitions, though framed as a prayer for a similar direction of consideration of a representation, would in substance have the effect of reopening the concluded adjudication arising from the judgment dated 06.05.2011, which cannot be permitted." It added, "This fact further indicates that the present proceedings do not disclose any live, workable relief that warrants exercise of this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
The Court stated, "The law attaches importance to finality in litigation." It observed, "A party cannot be permitted to re-agitate a concluded controversy by adopting a different procedural route, or by seeking directions of a nature which would have the effect of reopening what has already attained finality."
On directions to “consider” and stale claims, it noted, "This Court has repeatedly disapproved the practice of seeking to revive stale or dead claims by the device of repeated representations, followed by a prayer for a direction to “consider” and a consequential challenge to the order passed on such consideration." It stated, "We believe that a court or tribunal, before issuing a direction for “consideration” without examining the merits, must first satisfy itself that the claim relates to a live issue." It recorded, "If the claim pertains to a stale or dead issue, the court must put an end to the matter rather than enable avoidable, successive rounds of litigation."
On parity after delay, the Court observed, "Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief." It stated, "While a court order in favour of a set of persons may, in appropriate cases, be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence."
The Court recorded, "Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them." (citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava).
On the role of the Bar, the Court stated, "We also consider it necessary to observe that the Bar has an important role in ensuring that such avoidable litigation is not pursued." It recorded, "Learned counsel are expected to assist the Court by placing the full procedural history with clarity, and by drawing attention to orders which have attained finality and to binding precedent bearing on delay, laches, and maintainability." It added, "Counsel should, in appropriate cases, advise litigants against pursuing repetitive proceedings which, in substance, seek to reopen concluded issues." The Court stated, "This is essential to preserve judicial time and to maintain the discipline of finality that the justice delivery system requires."
The Court recorded that “we are not inclined to entertain request for permission to file SLP” and “consequently the SLP deserves to be dismissed”. It directed that “the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed” and further ordered that “pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv. Ms. Nehol Sri L.v., Adv. Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, Adv.
Case Title: Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5619 of 2024 with SLP (C) No. 4044 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
