* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 797/2008
Date of Decision: 16th January, 2009
RAJ KISHORE SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES BOARD ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
O R D E R
%
1. This is second round of litigation. The appellants herein along with one Mr. Mr. Krishan Mohan Kumar Singh had filed W.P.(C) No. 782/1996 claiming regularization on the ground that they had been working as gardeners. The said writ petition was dismissed, inter alia, holding that the appellants herein were not entitled to regularization in view of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC Scale 197. It is further held that the appellants herein were not covered by paragraph 44 of the said judgment as they had not continued to work for ten years or more without intervention of orders of court or tribunals. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by order dated 28th August, 2006. The said order was confirmed in appeal LPA No. 1996-2002/2006 holding, inter alia, that the appellants were not entitled to protection/regularization in terms of paragraph 44 of the said judgment as they had continued to work in view of interim orders passed by the Court in their favour.
2. Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn, as the counsel for the appellants herein had made a similar prayer and had stated that the appellants would seek remedy somewhere else.
3. The appellants after withdrawing the Special Leave Petition cannot now start a fresh round of litigation by filing a writ petition for the same relief and on the same subject matter. The orders dated 28th August, 2006 and 18th November, 2007 passed in W.P.(C)No. 782/2006 and LPA Nos. 1996-2002/2006 respectively have not been set aside and cannot be reopened in this manner. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellant will make a representation to the authorities/respondents. It will be open to the appellants to make a representation, which if made, can be examined. It is, however, clarified that examination of the representation and decision thereon will not be construed as giving a fresh right to the appellants to initiate another round of litigation by filing a writ petition. It is also clarified that in case the appellants have any other remedy available to them under any statute before any other forum, they are entitled to invoke the said remedy.
CHIEF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 16, 2009 VKR