‘State not liable to pay salary dues in PSUs’
Legal Correspondent

Interim order which does not conclusively decide an issue can’t be a precedent

New Delhi: The State government is not liable for payment of salaries and other dues to employees of public sector undertakings under its control, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench rejected the contention that the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2003 and 2005 in directing PSUs in Bihar to pay salaries and other dues should be treated as a precedent to grant relief to similarly placed employees.

Writing the judgment, Justice R.V. Raveendran said: “The observations and directions in the case of Kapila Hingorani 1 and 2 vs. the State of Bihar being interim directions based on tentative reasons, restricted to the peculiar facts of that case involving an extraordinary situation of human rights violation resulting in starvation deaths and suicides by reason of non-payment of salaries to the employees of a large number of public sector undertakings for several years, have no value as precedents.”

The Bench, which included Justice Markandey Katju, said: “The interim directions were also clearly in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. It is not possible to read such tentative reasons, as final conclusions, as contended by the respondent. If those observations are taken to be the final decision, it may lead to every disadvantaged group or every citizen or every unemployed person, facing extreme hardship, approaching this court or the High Court alleging human rights violations and seeking a mandamus requiring the state to provide him or them an allowance for meeting food, shelter, clothing, salary, medical treatment and education, if not more.”

The Bench said: “A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent. Any reasons assigned in support of such a non-final interim order containing prima facie findings are only tentative. Any interim directions issued on the basis of such prima facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve status quo till the matter is finally decided.”