SUPREME COURT: DELAYED PETITIONERS COPYING OTHERS’ SUCCESS CANNOT DEMAND SAME RELIEF AS A RIGHT:

The Supreme Court has clarified that employees cannot claim parity-based relief after a long delay simply because others in similar positions have secured such benefits, as this would amount to reopening issues that have already been settled. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that litigants who notice the success of others cannot automatically demand similar relief as a matter of right, particularly when a significant time has passed since the original matter was resolved.

The case arose from a petition challenging the State Government’s review under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, which had set aside a tribunal direction for the reinstatement of the petitioners. The High Court had upheld the state’s decision, and the Supreme Court in 2014 left it undisturbed. The petitioners filed the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) relying on a 2021 order of the Gujarat High Court. In that case, the High Court had directed the competent authority to consider a representation concerning higher grade pay scales for a teacher still in service. Although the petitioners were not parties to that case, they sought the same relief, arguing that the benefit granted in the 2021 order should apply to them as well.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, noting that the matter concerning the appellants was already conclusively settled, and it was not open to them to revive the same issue after such a long delay. The bench explained that courts and tribunals must first determine whether a claim relates to a live issue before issuing directions for consideration without examining merits. If a claim pertains to a stale or concluded matter, the court must refuse to entertain it, rather than allowing successive rounds of litigation that are avoidable.

The Court further clarified that while relief granted to one set of individuals can, in certain circumstances, be extended to others who are identically situated, such extensions are subject to recognized exceptions, including delay, laches, and acquiescence, as laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347. In the instant case, the petitioners were not in a position identical to the individuals involved in the Gujarat High Court’s 2021 order, and therefore could not claim the same benefit.

In addition, the Supreme Court advised counsel to discourage clients from pursuing claims based on subsequent developments or orders granted to others, particularly when the original issues have attained finality. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving judicial resources and maintaining the principle of finality in legal proceedings. Counsel is expected to assist courts by presenting complete procedural histories, highlighting orders that have become final, and drawing attention to binding precedents regarding delay, laches, and maintainability. The bench warned that allowing repetitive proceedings that seek to reopen concluded disputes undermines the efficiency and discipline of the justice delivery system.

By dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that long-delayed attempts to secure parity-based relief cannot override settled law and stressed the necessity of finality in litigation to prevent avoidable litigation and protect judicial time.