Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 2008 SC 98
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a party brings successive proceedings seeking substantially the same relief which has already been rejected in earlier litigation that has attained finality, a subsequent proceeding for the same relief is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and such proceeding is not maintainable merely because the subsequent petition references a different act or document if the substantive relief sought is identical to that which was previously adjudicated upon and rejected. Even where an administrative authority passes a resolution granting a relief during the pendency of litigation for that same relief, if the resolution cannot be given effect by reason of statutory requirement (such as lack of prior approval from a competent authority as mandated by the relevant statute), the later filing of a writ petition to enforce that ineffective resolution does not constitute a new cause of action but rather seeks to revive a claim already finally rejected in earlier proceedings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RAMESH KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
ORDER
The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Director of Physical Education in
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, claimed revised pay scales at Rs. 550-900
w.e.f. 14.7.1979, Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980, Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and
Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987. His request for grant of the said revised pay scales was
rejected by the University by communication dated 10.04.1991. The said rejection
was challenged by the appellant in Civil Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.08.1992. The
appellant challenged the decision of the High Court in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.16068 of 1992. This Court dismissed the SLP.
2. The appellant thereafter started a second round of litigation. He
approached the Civil Court(Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Rohtak) in Civil Suit
No.194 of 1993 for a declaration that the University's action issuing letter dated
10.04.1991 refusing the revision of pay scales was illegal, null and void and for a 2
direction awarding pay scales of Rs. 550-900 w.e.f. 14.7.1979, Rs.700-1600 w.e.f.
1.4.1980, Rs. 2000-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987. On
contest, by a considered judgment the said suit was dismissed on 09.09.2002.
3. During the pendency of the suit a representation filed by the appellant was
considered by the Executive Council of the University and a resolution was passed on
20.08.1997 acceding to the request of the appellant for grant of the said pay scales Rs.
550-900 w.e.f. 15.11.1979, Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980, Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986
and Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987. But as there was no representative of the State
Government present in the said meeting and as the prior approval of the State
Government had not been granted, the resolution was not given effect having regard
to the Section 9F and 11A of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975. There is
no dispute that the resolution was not given effect. Apparently that is why the
appellant neither sought withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the resolution was
passed accepting his request nor sought amendment raising any additional ground
that the University had accepted his claim. He proceeded with the suit and as stated
above the suit ended in dismissal on 09.09.2002. Not being satisfied, the appellant
challenged the dismissal of the suit by filing an appeal before the Additional District
Judge, Rohtak. The said appeal (Civil Appeal No.96 of 2002/2003) was dismissed on
05.09.2003. The appellant did not challenge the said dismissal of the appeal and the
said dismissal thus attained finality.
4. Thereafter, the appellant commenced the third round of litigation. He filed
another Writ Petition -W.P.No.18778 of 2003 for a direction to the University to 3
grant the said revised pay scales in terms of the decision of the University contained
in resolution dated 20.08.1997. It may be noticed that though the prayer was for
giving effect to the resolution dated 20.08.1997, the prayer in effect was for grant of
revised pay scales Rs. 550-900 w.e.f. 14.7.1979, Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980, Rs.
2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987, which had been earlier
rejected by Courts in two rounds of litigation. The High Court therefore dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant for the very same
relief and the appeal therefrom having been dismissed, the writ petition was not
maintainable. Dealing with the contention that the writ petition was with reference to
a different subsequent cause of action based on the resolution dated 20.08.1997, the
High Court observed that the plaint ought to have been amended to include a relief
with reference to the resolution dated 20.08.1997 and that not having been done, the
claim cannot be revived with reference to the resolution dated 20.08.1997. The
application for review filed by the appellant was also rejected on 26.06.1994. The
appellant has challenged the order of dismissal of the writ petition and review petition
in this appeal by special leave.
5. As noticed above, there have been three rounds of litigation seeking the
same relief. The first is Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 and SLP(C)No.16068 of 1992
wherein the prayer has been rejected. The second is in Civil Suit No. 194 of 1993 and
in Appeal No.96 of 2002/2003 which also ended in dismissal. The present third round
of litigation is for the very same relief. It is clear that the claim is liable to be rejected
having regard to Section 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Even on merits, we find 4
that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The resolution dated 20.08.1997 could
not be given effect as the requisite prior approval of the State Government was not
obtained and as a representative of the State Government was not present at the time
of such resolution. Therefore, Section 9F and 11A came in the way of giving effect to
the resolution. Even otherwise we find that the writ petition filed in the year 2003 to
enforce the resolution passed in 1997 nearly six years later, was liable to be rejected
even on the ground of delay and laches. Viewed from any angle the appeal deserves
to be rejected.
6. Learned counsel for this appellant submitted that following the resolution
in the case of the appellant, relief has been given to someone else. Whether relief was
given to others or not, is totally irrelevant when considering the bar based on Section
11 and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Secondly, the relief that has been allegedly given in
other cases was also subject to the State Government's approval and not
unconditional. In this case the contention of the University is not that it has not
passed any resolution acceding to the appellant's request, but that it could not be
given effect for want of State Government's approval.
7. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
..............................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
..............................J. ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ) NEW DELHI, JUNE 24, 2008.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free