HC says limiting effect of judgments defeats equality; calls out Punjab for failing to act as ‘model employer’

Holding that narrowing the application of court decisions undermines equality before law and burdens the justice system, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasised that once relief is granted to one set of employees, other similarly placed employees should not be compelled to repeatedly move the courts for identical benefits.

Condemning the practice of compelling similarly situated employees to repeatedly litigate matters settled by clear and consistent judicial pronouncements, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that the State, as a model employer, was under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, promptly, and in good faith. The bench also questions Punjab Litigation Policy’s purpose as settled issues keep returning to courts despite clear judicial pronouncements.

The bench added that administrative indifference and inertia in implementing court directions had emerged as a recurring concern; “one that erodes public trust and burdens the justice delivery system”. Justice Brar also referred to the principle of stare decisis, which commands that the decision of the competent court must be honoured to promote predictability and consistency in the law.

“Limiting the scope of application of judgments by categorising them as just in personum (legal claim or obligation enforceable only against a specific, identifiable individual) defeats the constitutional goal of equality and paves way for further litigation, thereby burdening the judicial system with matters that already stand duly settled,” the court observed.

Justice Brar asserted it would be in the interest of justice, fairness and administrative efficacy to allow judgments rendered to have broader application. Citing the legal maxim boni judicis est causas litium dirimere (It is a good judge’s duty to remove causes of litigation), the court added that judges were bound to ensure their decisions did not fuel further litigation.

“Once a competent court has granted a certain relief to one set of employees, they as well as their similarly-situated counterparts must not be forced to move the courts to have the same implemented,” Justice Brar stated, while disposing of a bunch of 128 petitions. The issue involved was entitlement of petitioners to third promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service. The court noted that the state government had constituted an empowered committee vide letter dated April 16 to address employees’ grievances in compliance with an earlier order dated March 20 in two cases.

Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of with directions that the petitioners submit detailed representations to the empowered committee within a month. The committee, in turn, would provide a fair hearing and pass “reasoned and speaking orders within three months”.

Other similarly situated employees who had not approached this court, were also given liberty to submit representation.

Before parting with the order, Justice Brar expressed strong concern over the recurring pattern of administrative indifference despite clear judicial pronouncements.

“This court is constrained to observe that the controversy involved herein has travelled to this court on multiple occasions, and has even engaged the attention of the Supreme Court. One is compelled to ask: what purpose does the litigation policy serve if matters, despite being conclusively settled by judicial pronouncements, are permitted to endlessly spiral back into litigation until they once again reach the highest constitutional forum?”

The bench added: “Once the law on an issue stands crystallised, compelling similarly situated employees to repeatedly invoke the writ jurisdiction to secure identical reliefs is contrary to public policy and the rule of law… Passive resistance to judicial mandates reveals institutional arrogance and a disregard for constitutional discipline.”