Satish Chander Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Background
Three retired employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation had opted for a 1999 pension scheme that gave them parity with government employees. The State later withdrew that scheme in 2004 for financial reasons, but protected only those who had already retired before the withdrawal notification, not those, like the petitioners, who retired afterward. A similar claim by other employees had already been rejected by the Supreme Court in an earlier case, State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood (2016), which upheld the government's cut-off date as valid and non-arbitrary. The petitioners here filed a fresh writ petition directly in the Supreme Court, arguing that the earlier judgment was wrongly decided (per incuriam) and should be revisited by a larger bench.
Decision Breakdown
The three-judge bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that a decision of the Supreme Court, right or wrong, cannot be challenged again through a fresh writ petition under Article 32; the only remedies are a review petition and, thereafter, a curative petition. The Court found no basis to call the earlier Rajesh Chander Sood judgment "per incuriam," since it had not ignored any binding precedent, and reaffirmed that the State's 2004 cut-off date for withdrawing enhanced pension benefits was a legitimate, bona fide policy decision within the government's power. Because the same issue had already been conclusively decided against similarly situated employees, allowing this petition would undermine the finality of judicial decisions. The Court declined to impose costs, noting the petitioners were retired senior citizens.
Lesson Learnt
Once the Supreme Court finally decides a legal question, that decision binds even people who were not parties to the case if their situation is identical. It cannot be reopened by simply filing a new writ petition; the law requires exhausting review and curative remedies instead.