Facts: The petitioners were initially appointed in 1985-1986 on Work Charge Establishment (WCE) in various technical posts like Mustering Karkoon and Mistry. In 1989, their posts were amalgamated into a new cadre called Civil Engineering Assistant (CEA), and they were absorbed into this cadre with a higher pay scale. In 1995, a Time Bound Promotion (TBP) scheme was introduced, granting benefits after 12 years of regular service. Initially, the respondents granted the petitioners TBP benefits by counting their 12 years of service from their original appointment on WCE. However, by impugned orders dated 04.09.2019 and 23.10.2019, the respondents revised this, holding that the 12-year period for TBP should be calculated only from the date of their absorption as CEA in 1989, as the WCE service was on a different post and pay scale.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the revision orders that reduced their pay and pensionary benefits by shifting the effective date of their TBP.
Issue: Whether the period of 12 years for the Time Bound Promotion scheme should be calculated from the date of initial appointment on Work Charge Establishment or from the date of absorption into the Civil Engineering Assistant cadre; and whether a non-speaking dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court constitutes a binding precedent over a prior reasoned judgment by the same Court.
Holding: The Court held that the TBP benefits must be calculated from the date of absorption as CEA. It further held that a reasoned judgment of the Supreme Court (Madhukar Patil case) is a binding precedent under Article 141, whereas a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP (Shivprakash case) does not attract the doctrine of merger and does not constitute a declaration of law.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the doctrine of merger as explained in "Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala", noting that a simple dismissal of an SLP without reasons does not mean the High Court's order merged into the Supreme Court's order. Conversely, since "Madhukar Patil v. State of Maharashtra" was a reasoned judgment delivered after granting leave to appeal, it is a binding precedent. On merits, the Court reasoned that TBP is intended to relieve stagnation in a specific post. Since the petitioners were moved to a new cadre (CEA) with a higher pay scale in 1989, their service for TBP eligibility must begin from that date. The Court also rejected the plea for "negative equality", stating that even if the government wrongly implemented a different order for other employees, the petitioners cannot claim a right to the same illegality under Article 14.