Litigants Who Approach Court After Long Delay Noticing Others' Success Can't Claim Similar Relief As Right : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that parity-based relief cannot be claimed after prolonged delay merely because similarly situated employees have succeeded, as such claims would reopen settled issues.

“Those who seek to claim the benefit after long delay, merely upon noticing that others have succeeded, cannot as a matter of course demand similar relief.”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

This was the case where the tribunal's direction for the reinstatement of the petitioners was set aside by the State Government in exercise of its review power under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. The state government's decision was upheld by the High Court and remained undisturbed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

The instant SLP was filed by the petitioners, relying on the Gujarat High Court's 2021 order, which directed the competent authority to consider a representation regarding higher grade pay scales of a teacher who was still in service.

Although the petitioners were not parties to that case, they sought similar directions from the Supreme Court, contending that the benefit of the 2021 order should be extended to them.

Dismissing the plea, the Court noted that since the issue qua the Appellants was settled, it was not open for them to re-agitate the same after a long delay.

“We believe that a court or tribunal, before issuing a direction for “consideration” without examining the merits, must first satisfy itself that the claim relates to a live issue. If the claim pertains to a stale or dead issue, the court must put an end to the matter rather than enable avoidable, successive rounds of litigation.”, the court said, pointing that “while a court order in favour of a set of persons may, in appropriate cases, be extended to others who are identically situated, this is subject to recognised exceptions, including delay, laches and acquiescence.” as held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347.

The Court also otherwise noted that the petitioners are not similarly situated to persons parties to the High Court's 2021 order to claim the relief.

Counsels Should Discourage Filing On Stale Claims

To curb the filing of litigation founded on stale claims, the Court advised counsel to discourage clients from pursuing relief based on subsequent developments, warning that such attempts would undermine the principle of finality and encourage the reopening of concluded disputes.

“Learned counsel are expected to assist the Court by placing the full procedural history with clarity, and by drawing attention to orders which have attained finality and to binding precedent bearing on delay, laches, and maintainability. Counsel should, in appropriate cases, advise litigants against pursuing repetitive proceedings which, in substance, seek to reopen concluded issues. This is essential to preserve judicial time and to maintain the discipline of finality that the justice delivery system requires.”, the court said.

Cause Title: DAMOR NANABHAI MANABHAI & ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 104

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv. Ms. Nehol Sri L.v., Adv. Ms. Rohini Narayanan, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, Adv.