Introduction:

In a decisive reaffirmation of the binding nature of judicial decisions, the Calcutta High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors. (MAT/70/2026) addressed the legality of selective compliance by the executive in the context of labour regularisation in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De was confronted with a situation where the Union Government had partially implemented an earlier judicial decision but subsequently resisted further compliance by invoking “policy considerations.”

The litigation has its roots in a prolonged struggle by Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) employed under the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, who sought parity in wages and eventual regularisation of their services. An earlier round of litigation culminated in a High Court direction requiring the Administration to grant DRMs wages equivalent to 1/30th of the minimum pay scale along with dearness allowance, in line with a 1988 Office Memorandum. This direction was subsequently reinforced by a Division Bench in 2022, which went a step further and directed the Administration to frame a comprehensive regularisation scheme within a stipulated period.

Pursuant to these directions, the Administration formulated a regularisation scheme in 2023. However, the implementation of this scheme required approval from the Union Government, which later declined to grant such approval, citing policy considerations. This refusal triggered fresh litigation, with the workers’ union challenging the Union’s stance as arbitrary and contrary to the binding judicial directions already issued.

A crucial factual element in the case was that the Union Government had already facilitated partial compliance with the earlier judgment by approving and disbursing a substantial amount, reportedly close to ₹300 crore, towards wages payable to the DRMs. This conduct raised serious questions about the consistency and legality of the Union’s subsequent refusal to approve the regularisation scheme.

The case thus presented a significant constitutional question regarding the extent to which the executive can rely on policy discretion to resist compliance with judicial orders, particularly when it has already acted upon parts of the same judgment. It also required the Court to examine the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata and the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Union of India, appearing as the appellant, advanced its case primarily on the ground of policy autonomy. It was argued that decisions relating to regularisation of employees fall within the domain of executive policy and financial planning, and that courts ought to exercise restraint in directing such measures. The Union contended that while it had complied with certain aspects of the earlier judgment, particularly those relating to payment of wages, the direction to frame and implement a regularisation scheme involved broader considerations of administrative feasibility and fiscal implications.

The appellant further relied on the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, wherein it was held that regularisation cannot be granted as a matter of course and that public employment must adhere to constitutional principles of equality and fair competition. The Union argued that the High Court’s directions, if implemented, would effectively bypass these principles and create a precedent for regularisation without due process.

Additionally, the Union sought to distance itself from the binding nature of the earlier judgment by pointing out that it was not a formal party to the proceedings at that stage. It was submitted that the directions issued by the High Court were addressed primarily to the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, and therefore, the Union could not be compelled to approve a scheme that it did not endorse as a matter of policy.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the workers’ union, argued that the Union’s stance was legally untenable and factually inconsistent. They contended that the earlier Division Bench judgment had attained finality and was binding on all stakeholders, including the Union Government, particularly in light of its active involvement in the implementation process.

The respondents emphasized that the Union had not only been aware of the earlier proceedings but had also facilitated compliance by approving significant financial outlays for payment of wages. This conduct, they argued, amounted to acquiescence and acceptance of the judgment, thereby precluding the Union from subsequently challenging or selectively complying with it.

It was further argued that the present case did not involve the formulation of a new policy but rather the implementation of a scheme that had already been framed pursuant to binding judicial directions. The respondents distinguished the reliance on Umadevi by pointing out that the Supreme Court’s ruling was intended to prevent arbitrary regularisation in the absence of legal backing, whereas in the present case, the regularisation scheme was the direct outcome of a judicial mandate.

The respondents also invoked the doctrine of res judicata, contending that the issues raised by the Union had already been conclusively decided in the earlier round of litigation. They argued that even if certain observations in the previous judgment were characterized as obiter dicta, they would still bind the parties once the judgment had attained finality.

In essence, the respondents’ case rested on the principle that judicial decisions cannot be fragmented or selectively implemented based on convenience, and that the rule of law requires full and faithful compliance with binding orders.

Court’s Judgment:

In a firm and unequivocal judgment, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the Union’s appeal and upheld the direction to consider and implement the 2023 regularisation scheme. The Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De delivered a strongly worded opinion criticizing the Union’s attempt to selectively comply with a binding judicial decision.

At the outset, the Court held that the earlier Division Bench judgment had attained finality and was binding on the parties. It observed that the Andaman & Nicobar Administration had not challenged the judgment and had, in fact, complied with it by framing the regularisation scheme. In such circumstances, the principle of res judicata squarely applied, preventing the parties from reopening issues that had already been settled.

The Court went a step further in holding that the Union Government itself was bound by the earlier judgment, despite not being a formal party. This conclusion was based on the Union’s conduct, which demonstrated clear knowledge of and participation in the implementation of the judgment. By approving and disbursing substantial funds for wage payments, the Union had effectively acceded to the judgment and could not later disown its obligations.

A central pillar of the Court’s reasoning was the doctrine that a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously. The Bench observed that the Union’s conduct in facilitating compliance with one part of the judgment while resisting the rest on policy grounds amounted to maintaining “double standards.” Such an approach, the Court held, is incompatible with the rule of law and undermines the authority of judicial decisions.

Addressing the reliance on Umadevi, the Court clarified that the present case was fundamentally different. It noted that the dispute was not about directing the State to frame a new policy of regularisation but about implementing a scheme that had already been formulated pursuant to a binding judicial direction. The Court emphasized that once such a direction has been issued and acted upon, it cannot be nullified by invoking policy considerations at a later stage.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the scheme had been framed under “threat of contempt,” observing that compliance with judicial orders is not a matter of discretion but a constitutional obligation. It remarked that the Administration had not done a favour to the Court by complying with its directions, but had merely fulfilled its legal duty.

In a broader sense, the judgment underscores the supremacy of judicial decisions in the constitutional framework. It reiterates that executive authorities cannot selectively interpret or implement court orders based on convenience or policy preferences. Once a judgment has attained finality, it must be complied with in its entirety, unless set aside by a higher court.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that neither the Administration nor the Union Government could resile from the earlier judgment. By upholding the regularisation scheme, the Court not only provided relief to the DRMs but also reinforced the principle that the rule of law demands consistency, accountability, and respect for judicial authority.