Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh Virk & Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 4061 of 2012 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4061 of 2012
Date of Decision: 23.01.2013
Surjit Singh Virk & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
Petitioner have approached this Court praying for quashing the orders dated 24.7.2009, 14.9.2009, 9.9.2009, 22.7.2009, 6.4.2009 and 6.4.2009 (Annexure P-6 collectively) vide which the benefit as envisaged under the Assured Career Progression Scheme dated 25.9.1998 to the extent of grant of placement in the scale of ` 7220-11660 after completion of 32 years of service has been withdrawn by misreading the instructions dated 27.6.2000 (Annexure P6/A).
Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioners have earlier challenged these very orders by filing CWP No. 8967 of 2010 titled Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 17.5.2010, CWP No. 13858 of 2010 titled Surjit Singh Virk etc. vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 6.8.2010 and CWP No. 19690 of 2008 titled Charanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on CWP No. 4061 of 2012 2 8.10.2009.
To this objection, counsel for the petitioners states that a Division Bench of this Court in a case Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(4)SCT 599, held that Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable and it would not act as a bar for maintainability of the writ petition as Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would not be applicable.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The impugned orders (Annexures P-6 Collectively), which have been referred to above, were under challenge in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners, which have been impugned in the present writ petition. At the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioners had contended that they challenge the orders to the extent of recovery only which was ordered from the petitioners by placing reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) S.C.T. 333. Counsel for the petitioners had further stated that the writ petition be disposed of in the light of an earlier decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 697 of 2010 titled as Kaur Chand vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 2.3.2010. It is, on this basis that this Court proceeded to decide the case in the light of the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing of the cases and set aside the recovery, which was ordered to be made from the petitioners vide these impugned orders.
This clearly indicates that the petitioners had earlier also challenged the same orders, which have been challenged in the present writ petition. The petitioners cannot, as a matter of fact, now assail the same as CWP No. 4061 of 2012 3 it is violative of accepted principle of law, which is based on the principle of res judicata as all claims which are admissible to a person flowing out of a cause of action had to be claimed by that person in one petition and it cannot be segregated into various petitions. It is also based on the principle of public policy and to avoid multiple litigations that such a principle has been accepted.
The Division Bench judgment which had been relied upon in the present case by the counsel for the petitioners rendered in Pritam Singh's case (supra) will not be applicable to the case in hand as in that case petitioner preferred a civil suit for claiming the benefit of pay, whereas in the writ petition he had claimed the benefit of reinstatement on the basis of his termination. The conclusions reached by the Court are in para 9 of the judgment, which read as follows :-
"9. The erroneous reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, however, does not, in any manner, vary the conclusion that has been arrived at by him for the reason that the appellant's right to challenge the order of dismissal had become available to him at the time of filing of the civil suit wherein he consciously chose to confine his prayer only to the arrears of salary and as a consequence, he willfully abandoned his right to assail the order of dismissal. Even the civil suit was filed after six years of the order of dismissal. The writ petition was filed again after an inordinate long period of delay in 1983 and the learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that even if the impediment of the order of dismissal had been erased completely, even then the appellant would have superannuated in the year 1982 rendering his claim for reinstatement negatory and meaningless." In any case, the petitioners have earlier challenged these very orders, although, at the time of arguments counsel restricted their claims CWP No. 4061 of 2012 4 regarding recovery only, but it would not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioners for approaching the Court for the same relief which has been sought by them earlier and not pressed through the present writ petition now as the same would be hit by principle of constructive res judicata.
In the light of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
23.01.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE