ASHIQ ALI and 1:3 others vs SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERENMENT OF THE
This matter originated from contempt proceedings initiated against the Secretary, Finance, Government of Punjab, due to the failure to comply with previous Supreme Court orders regarding the payment of arrears of Special Research Allowance to the petitioners for the period between 1-1-1985 and 30-6-1987. The core legal question concerned the enforcement of court-ordered financial benefits and the potential financial implications for the government exchequer regarding similarly situated employees. During the proceedings, the Secretary, Finance, appeared and provided an undertaking that the government would pay the petitioners their outstanding arrears. The Court accepted this statement and consequently discharged the contempt notice. Regarding the apprehension that this order might create a precedent for other employees, the Court clarified that judicial judgments are binding only upon the parties to the specific litigation. Therefore, the benefit of the Court's judgment is restricted solely to those officers who were parties to the original proceedings, unless the government voluntarily chooses to extend such benefits to others. This principle reinforces the limited scope of judicial relief to the specific litigants involved in a case.
- Are judgments of the Court binding on persons who were not parties to the litigation?
- Can the government be compelled to extend the benefit of a court judgment to similarly situated employees who were not parties to the original case?
- Does a contempt notice discharge upon the respondent's undertaking to comply with the court's order?
ORDER
' NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ. ---In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21-11-1993 the Secretary, Finance; Government of Punjab has appeared before us in person. He was called upon to explain why the petitioners had not been paid, despite the orders of the Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.253 to 256 of 1987 dated 11-12-1988 and Civil Review Petitions Nos.24-R to 27-R of 1989 dated 8- 10-1989 the arrears of Special Research Allowance from 1-1-1985 to 30-6-1987. The explanation he gave for the default was not very intelligible. Anyhow he clearly stated before the Court that the Government would pay the petitioners' arrears of Special Research Allowance for the period from 1- 1-1985 to 30-6-1987. An apprehension, however, was expressed that as a result of the orders of the Court Officers similarly situated as the petitioners may also claim Special Research Allowance and the burden, on this account, on the Government exchequer will be very heavy.
2. This apprehension proceeds on a misconception. In fact in our order dated 8-10-1989 we had already clarified the position on this aspect of the matter by observing: "The judgments of the Courts bind only the parties to the litigation. Hence all these officers who had challenged the interpretation of the Finance Department by filing one appeal before the Service Tribunal can alone benefit from the judgment of the Tribunal or the judgment, of this Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.253 to 256 of 1987 and none else, unless the Government out of its own benevolence wishes to extend its benefit to them."
3. In view of the categorical statement made before the Court by the Secretary, Finance Department that the arrears of Special Research Allowance will be paid to the petitioners, it is not necessary to continue with these proceedings and this notice of contempt stands discharged.