In
The Supereme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.2633 of
2006
Ramesh
Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents
Order
1. 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.
Back
