SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

SATISH CHANDER SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that Rajesh Chander Sood was not rendered per incuriam and is binding; a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to directly or collaterally assail a judgment of this Court and the remedy lies in review and, if applicable, curative petition; the State was competent to repeal the 1999 Scheme and fix the cut-off date of 02.12.2004 based on financial viability and bona fide administrative review, and therefore the petitioners' challenge failed; the writ petition was dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner(s): Satish Chander Sharma & Ors.; Respondent(s): State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Judgment
Outcome
Writ Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 32, Finality of Judgments, Per Incuriam, Judgment Not Amenable to Review Under Article 32, Cut Off Date for Pension Benefits, Pension Scheme Repeal, Estoppel/promissory Estoppel, Article 14, Article 300 a, Review and Curative Petition
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Pension Law Civil Procedure Article 32 Finality of Judgments Per Incuriam +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satish Chander Sharma & Ors.

Petitioner(s)

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood was decided per incuriam
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood is binding on the petitioners and can be challenged directly or collaterally under Article 32
  3. 3 Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable to challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Rajesh Chander Sood was not rendered per incuriam and is binding; a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to directly or collaterally assail a judgment of this Court and the remedy lies in review and, if applicable, curative petition; the State was competent to repeal the 1999 Scheme and fix the cut-off date of 02.12.2004 based on financial viability and bona fide administrative review, and therefore the petitioners' challenge failed; the writ petition was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Writ Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ petition dismissed
  • No costs