The Supreme Court on Wednesday said finality of a litigation is a core facet of a sound judicial system and a case that has concluded cannot be reopened, otherwise there will be "chaos in the administration of justice".

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a writ petition filed by former employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, seeking pensionary benefits despite the issue having attained finality in a separate round of litigation in 2016.

"It is crystal clear that the present writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. However, before parting with the record, we would like to emphasize and reiterate the principle of finality of an adjudication process. Finality of a lis is a core facet of a sound judicial system. Litigation which had concluded or had reached finality cannot be reopened," the bench said.

It added that a litigant aggrieved by a decision rendered by this court in a special leave petition or in a civil appeal arising therefrom can seek its review by invoking the review jurisdiction and thereafter through a curative petition.

"But such a decision cannot be assailed in a writ proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If this is permitted, then there will be no finality and no end to litigation. There will be chaos in the administration of justice," the bench emphasised.

It said that the top court in its 2002 verdict in the case of 'Green View Tea and Industries Versus Collector' had expressed the view that finality of an order of the apex court should not lightly be unsettled.

The bench said this salutary principle was reiterated by this court in its 2011 verdict in the case of 'Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action versus Union of India'.

"Thus, having regard to the discussions made above, we are of the unhesitant view that the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived. The decision of this Court in Rajesh Chander Sood (2016 verdict) is clearly binding on the petitioners. That being the position, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed," it said.

In 2018, three former employees of the forest corporation approached the top court by filing a writ petition under Article 32.

They were aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits to them in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 discontinued vide the notification dated December 2, 2004, which though carved out an exception for those who had opted for the scheme and had superannuated prior to December 2, 2004.

They sought a direction to the state government for payment of pension to them upon their superannuation in terms of the said scheme at par with similarly situated employees who had retired prior to December 2, 2004, by counting their pensionable service from the date of joining till the date of their superannuation.

The issue of pensionary benefit was earlier raised by a group of former employees of the corporation before the high court, allowed their petition in 2013 and directed the State to provide pension to the retired employees of the Corporation in terms of the scheme.

The 2013 decision of the high court was challenged before the top court by the state government which in 2016 reversed the high court's order.

The 2018 writ petition sought the same relief and contended that in the 2016 verdict, several binding precedents were ignored by the top court and the decision be rendered as per incuriam (bad in law).

The top court on March 20, 2018 issued notice on the plea and the matter was placed before a three-judge bench as correctness of the two-judge verdict of 2016 was questioned.