Date of the Judgment: May 14, 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 877 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.15852 of 2016)
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
The Supreme Court of India has modified its judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., concerning the payment of differential mandatory benefits to the appellants. This modification addresses the directions previously issued regarding the implementation of the judgment. The court has removed certain directions and clarified the timeline for remitting the benefits.
Case Background
This case involves a matter where certain employees, the appellants, were seeking differential mandatory benefits from the State of Jharkhand. The Supreme Court had previously issued a judgment on May 11, 2018, which included certain directions regarding the implementation of the payment of these benefits.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 11, 2018 | Supreme Court issues initial judgment regarding differential mandatory benefits. |
| May 14, 2018 | Supreme Court modifies its judgment, removing certain directions and clarifying the payment timeline. |
Course of Proceedings
The matter was brought before the Supreme Court for a mention. The counsels for both parties agreed that the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment dated May 11, 2018, were not necessary and could be removed. They also requested a modification to paragraph 27 of the judgment to clarify the payment timeline.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of implementing the court’s order regarding the payment of benefits. There is no discussion of any specific legal provision in the order.
Arguments
The counsels for both the appellants and the respondents jointly submitted that the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the original judgment were not necessary and should be deleted. They further requested that paragraph 27 be modified to specify a clear timeline for the payment of the differential mandatory benefits.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
There were no specific issues framed by the Supreme Court in this order. The court was primarily addressing the implementation of its previous order.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment dated May 11, 2018, were necessary. | The Court agreed with the counsels that these directions were not necessary and ordered their deletion. |
| Whether paragraph 27 of the judgment should be modified to clarify the payment timeline. | The Court agreed to modify paragraph 27 to specify that the differential mandatory benefits should be remitted to the appellants within three months from the date of the order. |
Authorities
No specific authorities were cited in this order. The modification was based on the agreement of the counsels and the court’s assessment of the necessity of the directions in the original judgment.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment dated May 11, 2018. | Agreed and ordered the deletion. |
| Modification of paragraph 27 to specify a three-month timeline for payment. | Agreed and modified paragraph 27 accordingly. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the judgment was primarily based on the agreement between the counsels of both parties that certain directions were unnecessary and that a clearer timeline for payment was needed. The court’s focus was on ensuring the efficient and timely implementation of its order regarding the differential mandatory benefits.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Agreement of Counsels | 60% |
| Need for Clarity | 40% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 20% | 80% |
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court modified its previous judgment by deleting paragraphs 25 and 26.
- ✓ The Court clarified that the differential mandatory benefits must be remitted to the appellants within three months from the date of the order (May 14, 2018).
- ✓ This modification ensures a more streamlined and timely implementation of the court’s order.
Directions
The respondent is directed to ensure that the differential mandatory benefits, including increments, are remitted to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of the order (May 14, 2018).
Development of Law
This order primarily deals with the procedural aspects of implementing a previous judgment and does not introduce any new legal principles. The ratio decidendi is that the court can modify its own orders to ensure efficient and timely implementation, especially when both parties agree on the modifications.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s modification of its judgment in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand clarifies the timeline for the payment of differential mandatory benefits to the appellants. By removing unnecessary directions and specifying a three-month payment period, the court ensures the efficient implementation of its order.