State Authorities Cannot Evade Judicial Orders In Service Matters Merely Because Their Employees Didn't Take Execution Steps: Supreme Court

The Bench observed that the State, as a model employer under Article 12 of the Constitution, is legally estopped from using systemic or procedural delays to defeat justice.

Invoking the maxim ex injuria sua nemo habere debet, the Court held that allowing the State to do so would amount to letting a party profit from its own wrongdoing, especially when the underlying grievance—such as monthly service increments—creates a continuous and recurring cause of action.

​The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed, “Secondly, we are mindful that the respondents no.1 and 2 are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Being so, the said respondents are required to act as and be model employers. It would not lie in their mouths to take a stand that because a party does not get an Order passed by a competent judicial forum executed, it would not comply with or honour the same. The State cannot be heard espousing such contention and is, to our minds, clearly estopped from so doing. To allow the State to do so would tantamount to permitting a party to take advantage of its own wrong, being non-implementation of the Tribunal’s Order dated 20.07.2012. Ex injuria sua nemo habere debet (no party can take advantage of his/her own wrong) as espoused in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447 and restated in Machhindranath v Ramchandra Gangadhar Dhamne, (2025) 7 SCC 450 would be attracted.”

Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Prerna Singh and Advocate Sateesh Galla appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The appellants successfully obtained a favourable order in a service law matter before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Due to non-implementation by the respondents, the appellants preferred a contempt application, which was dismissed as time-barred. After a prolonged delay, they moved a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay to file an execution petition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to the condition that the appellants pay a specified cost to the State Legal Services Authority within a fixed period, failing which the execution petition would stand automatically rejected. The appellants challenged this conditional order before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but subsequently withdrew the writ petition after lengthy arguments, resulting in its dismissal as withdrawn.

The appellants then filed a fresh writ petition seeking implementation of the original Tribunal order, deliberately suppressing the dismissal of their contempt plea, the conditional execution order, and the withdrawal of their previous writ petition. Unaware of these facts, the High Court initially allowed the petition. When the appellants filed a contempt case for non-compliance, the respondents preferred a review application exposing the suppression of material facts.

The High Court allowed the review application, recalled its earlier order, and restored the writ petition for a fresh hearing. The connected contempt case was consequently dismissed. Upon a rehearing on merits, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the restored writ petition via the impugned order. Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court noted that while the previous writ petition technically sought wide reliefs, it practically challenged only the Tribunal's order imposing conditional costs for condonation of delay. Therefore, the lack of explicit liberty to file afresh did not bar the subsequent writ petition seeking full implementation of the original order.

On the issue of non-disclosure, the Court firmly rejected the Appellants' defence that they deemed the prior proceedings irrelevant, reiterating that it is the solemn duty of litigants to place all connected facts before the court, leaving it entirely to the judiciary to determine what constitutes a "material fact." The Court emphasized that suppression must involve facts of such critical import that their absence would significantly alter the trajectory of the case or render the decision unjust.

The Court said that the respondents, being the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, must act as model employers. The State cannot escape its obligations by pleading that the employee delayed taking execution steps, as no party can be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong.

The Court said that since the dispute pertained to service increments and payments to be made on a monthly basis, every month of non-payment gave rise to a fresh, recurring cause of action.

“Thirdly, another aspect of the matter is that in the present case, the underlying grievance/cause of action is alive for the simple reason that payments were to be made on a monthly basis, and failure to do so, would, for every such month of non-payment, give rise to a fresh cause of action”, the Court said.

The Court observed that a litigant’s cause should not be defeated merely due to systemic delays or the passage of time within the judicial machinery.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's original order did not lose its force by mere efflux of time and that the State could not deny the appellants their rightful benefits on technical grounds of delay.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside. The Respondents were directed to fully implement the Tribunal's original order and release all required payments to the appellants within four months.

However, as a measure of deterrence for the appellants' non-disclosures, the Court declined to grant any interest on the outstanding amounts.

Cause Title: B. Yerraji & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 495]

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh

Respondents: Advocate Prerna Singh, Advocate Sateesh Galla

Click here to read/download the Judgment