Chandigarh, February 4, 2025: In a decisive move to streamline judicial proceedings and curb unnecessary litigation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the establishment of dedicated cells at both university and departmental levels. These cells will scrutinize whether appeals being filed are already covered by existing court judgments.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta clarified that further appeals should not be entertained once a Division Bench has ruled on a particular legal provision and the judgment has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
University’s Repeated Appeals Criticized
The directive came in response to the persistent appeals filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, despite clear precedents in previous judgments. The Bench strongly disapproved of the institution’s actions, stating, “Once a view relating to a specific statute or legal provision has already been settled by a Division Bench and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, no further appeals should be entertained.”
The court was hearing two petitions filed by the university challenging a Single Judge’s order dated July 2, 2024. The ruling favored Assistant Professor K.C. Bishnoi and Ghanshyam Dass Sharma, entitling them to arrears of revised pension from 38 months prior to their petition filing date, along with 6% annual interest until full payment.
No Scope for Further Debate
After reviewing arguments from advocates Manu K. Bhandari and Arjun Sawhni representing the respondents, the Bench concluded that the issue was no longer “res integra”—meaning the legal question had already been settled by precedent.
Referring to prior judgments, the Bench found that the Single Judge was justified in granting service benefits to the petitioners, stating, “The benefit of qualifying service of four years and 22 days to Dr. K.C. Bishnoi and five years to Dr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharma is entirely consistent with established legal precedent.”
Immediate Implementation Ordered
Dismissing the appeals, the court instructed the university to implement the Single Judge’s ruling without any further delay. The order stated, “Without further ado, we dismiss the LPAs filed by the university and direct the immediate execution of the Single Judge’s decision.”
Formation of Special Cells to Prevent Redundant Appeals
Before concluding, the Bench mandated the formation of a specialized cell comprising responsible officers at the university and departmental levels. The objective of these cells is to assess whether a proposed appeal is already covered by an existing court ruling.
The directive emphasized that this measure would significantly reduce case pendency and unnecessary legal disputes, ultimately fostering judicial efficiency.
This ruling serves as a strong message against redundant litigation and underscores the High Court’s commitment to judicial efficiency and resource conservation.