Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2316 (HP)

Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-11-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 5th May, 2011, made by the Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 8453 of 2008, titled as Hem Raj versus State of H.P. and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned judgment”). 2. The appellant writ petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in the year 1992 by the medium of OA No. 1111 of 1992, which came to be disposed of vide order, dated 17th September, 1992. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the said order herein: “The averments made in the application make out a case for giving service to the applicant in consonance with the judgments of the Tribunal in case No. OA162/90 Lalita Kumari versus State of H.P. and OA364/87 Joginder Singh versus State of H.P. and other similar cases. The respondents are directed to give him the appointment as T.G.T. (Arts) within a period of two months from today if found eligible. In view of the above, the application is disposed of accordingly.” 3. It appears that thereafter, having found eligible, the appellant writ petitioner was appointed afresh in the year 1994. It is apt to record herein that there was no direction to the respondents, in terms of the order (supra), for appointment of the appellant writ petitioner in continuation of the services rendered by him in the year 1989. He accepted the said appointment. 4. In the year 2002, he filed another Original Application, being OA No. 1042 of 2002, before the Tribunal, which, on the abolition of the erstwhile Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 8453 of 2008, seeking the following reliefs amongst others: “a) That the respondents may be directed to count for the services as TGT (Art) of applicant at Rani Ratna Memorial High School, Gharwasra w.e.f. 9.1.87 till he was appointed on regular basis vide office order dated 28.10.1994 for seniority, promotion as well as monitory benefits and other benefits as provided under law for which the applicant is entitled to. b) That the applicant be given all consequential benefits after counting for his services as TGT (Arts) at Rani Ratna Memorial High School, Gharwasra for which he is legally entitled to.” 5. b) That the applicant be given all consequential benefits after counting for his services as TGT (Arts) at Rani Ratna Memorial High School, Gharwasra for which he is legally entitled to.” 5. The appellant writ petitioner is caught by the principle of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) and also by the doctrine of estoppel and resjudicata. 6. The Writ Court has rightly held that the appellant writ petitioner cannot seek the said reliefs again when the same were not granted to him in the earlier Original Application. 7. Having said so, the impugned judgment is legal one and well reasoned, needs no interference. 8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.