Delhi High Court
N.D. Qureshi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 March, 2008
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan Sarin, Manmohan
JUDGMENT Manmohan, J.
1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the petitioner can repeatedly file fresh petitions/proceedings claiming the same relief, despite the earlier proceedings having attained finality.
2. Briefly stated the material facts for this case, as apparent from the chart incorporated in the Respondents' counter affidavit, are that in the year 1988, the petitioner had filed a petition being OA No. 574/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By way of that OA, the petitioner had sought pay fixation in the selection post of PA to Director General (DG), further promotion to the post of Personal Secretary (PS) to DG, subsequent promotion to the post of Regional Director and upgradation of the existing post of PS to DG to the corresponding post of PS in the CSSS hierarchy. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on 23rd April, 1999.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of said OA, the petitioner filed a civil writ petition being WP(C) No. 6783/1999 in this Hon'ble Court. This writ petition was dismissed on 10th March, 2000. The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 4633/2000 before this Hon'ble Court, which was also dismissed on 22nd August, 2000.
4. Petitioner filed a review application being RA 315/2000 before the Administrative Tribunal against the order dismissing OA No. 574/1998. The said review application was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 6th December, 2000. Against the dismissal of the said RA, the petitioner filed another writ petition in this Hon'ble Court being WP(C) No. 498/2000. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 10th January, 2001.
5. In the year 2001 the petitioner filed another petition before the Administrative Tribunal being OA 1399/2001 praying for the same reliefs. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 31st May, 2001. Another OA 1615/2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on grounds of res judicata on 19th July, 2001.
6. A fresh petition being OA 1305/2001 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This petition was dismissed on 26th August, 2002 on the ground that it was barred by principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata. A review application being RA 255/2002 was also filed against the said order. The same was also dismissed on 8th November, 2002.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application being MA No. 2923/2002 under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 to quash the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal dated 8th November, 2002 in RA 255/2002 and the order dated 26th August, 2002 in the OA No. 1305/2002. On 24th February, 2003 the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable under the provisions of Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
8. In the year 2003 the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 2531/2003 before this Hon'ble Court. On 16th August, 2007 the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No liberty was either sought or granted by this Hon'ble Court while dismissing the said writ petition.
9. In the year 2007, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for a large number of diverse reliefs like payment of Rs. 3 crores on account of arrears of salary and interest, hearing of the present writ petition by a specially constituted Bench within a definite time frame after placing on record the documents running into 200 pages. In the present writ petition the petitioner has contended that the judgment and orders of the Tribunal dismissing OA No. 574/1998 as well as MA No. 2923/2002 are contrary to their own findings, violative of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair-play. In the writ petition the petitioner has sought upgradation of the post of PA to DG, DPC for promotion to the post of PS to DG, promotion to the post of Deputy Regional Director and upgradation of post of PS to DG as PPS to DG.
10. During arguments the petitioner confined his prayer for higher salary for a period of ten years i.e. 1970 to 1980. Petitioner referred to an Office Order No. 5 of 1983 of ESIC at page 59 by which special pay of Rs. 40/-, which was attached to the post of Personal Assistant to Director General, was made applicable to him w.e.f. 16th January,1970 to 31st December, 1972. The petitioner contended that he is entitled to all the benefits as applicable to the Personal Assistant to the Director General in ESIC, but for his proceeding on leave and deputation in terms of the letter at page 59. The genesis of his claim is that he had also worked as Personal Assistant (Language) to the Railway Minister from the period 1970 to 1977. On his return from deputation in 1977, he was not posted as PA to Director General, ESIC. The petitioner further contends that no special pay as per his entitlement was paid. On the contrary, he was posted as PA to the Medical Superintendent, ESIC Hospital at Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi. In fact the petitioner alleges that Mr. Somnath, a person junior to him, had been appointed as PA to Director General. Even, his protests were not given any heed to. Petitioner further says that he was eligible for proforma promotion and he should have been given these benefits under the Rules from 1st November, 1973. Petitioner also claims that PS to the DG was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Director. Petitioner contends that he be given that benefit on the basis of a proposed amendment of the regulations.
11. However, the petitioner during the course of arguments admitted that he has no claims against the Railways as the Railways have duly paid him the deputation allowance. The respondents in their counter have stated that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade II on ad hoc basis vide office order No. 20/1970 and he was relieved of his duty as PA to DG with effect from 16th January, 1970. Ironically, it was the petitioner who himself submitted a representation dated 16th January, 1970 declining the said promotion on the ground that his health does not permit him to do an outdoor/strenuous job. As such at the petitioner's request, his promotion to the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade II was cancelled. Thus, the petitioner can have no grievance on this score. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner had in OA No. 574/98 sought to rely on an order allegedly passed by Labour Secretary on 18th July, 1994. The existence of such an order was denied by the respondent. In fact the Tribunal perused the nothings and files and satisfied itself that there was nothing on record to show that any order dated 18th July, 1994 had been passed. The Tribunal also satisfied itself that the claims of the petitioner had been examined more than once by the respondent No. 1, who found themselves unable to accept the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's reliance on OA No. 5/1983 is misconceived on facts.
12. Moreover, from the above narrated facts, it would be apparent that the petitioner has been re-litigating for a considerable number of years. In our view on the principle of res judicata and re-litigation the petitioner is even barred from raising new pleas for the same old relief. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors. has held that it is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. This re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if a spurious claim is made in a case, it may also amount to an abuse of process of the court. In our view, frivolous or vexatious proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless-like in the present case.
13. We also expunge from the record averments/allegations of communal bias, victimization and favoratism based on caste considerations. Personal allegations against the respondents' counsel, Ms. Jyoti Singh, for being responsible for the death of petitioner's wife and other allegations in this regard of the petitioner are also expunged.
14. Consequently, we dismiss the present writ petition. Ordinarily, we would have imposed heavy costs on the petitioner for having indulged in re-litigation but as the petitioner is a senior citizen and a retired Government employee, who has also lost his wife, we are imposing costs of only Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred).