Allahabad High Court
Ramashray Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 11 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14948-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 94 of 2025
Appellant :- Ramashray Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Avinash Chandra,Akhilesh Kumar Kalra,Alok Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Sharma,Anuuj Taandon,Prashast Puri
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Sri Avinash Chandra and Sri Alok Yadav, the learned Counsel for the appellant; Sri Anil Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nishant Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel for the State; Sri Anuj Tandon and Sri Alok Sharma for the opposite parties no. 3 to 6; and Sri Prashast Puri for the opposite party no. 7.
2. By means of this Intra Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 14.02.2025 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the grounds (i) that the appellant has concealed the fact that he was a petitioner in Writ-A No. 791 of 2022 filed in this Court wherein a prayer had been made for grant of annual increment and that the aforesaid Writ Petition had been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition; and (ii) that the appellant is a co-petitioner in Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022 filed before this Court at Allahabad claiming annual increments, in which a copy of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020 had been annexed but no prayer had been made for quashing of the aforesaid Government order and, therefore, the present Writ Petition seeking quashing of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020 is barred by the principles contained in Order II Rule 2, C.P.C.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Writ-A No. 791 of 2022 had been filed claiming the relief of annual increments which was dismissed by means of the following order passed by this Court on 16.2.2022: -
"Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 has been accepted by Sri Rakesh Bajpai, learned Standing Counsel, while on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5, notice has been accepted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition."
4. It was in furtherance of the aforesaid liberty granted by this Court by the aforesaid order dated 16.02.2022 that Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022 has been filed by several petitioners, including the Appellant, before this Court sitting at Allahabad, claiming the following reliefs: -
"(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents, more specifically-Respondent No. 4 to grant benefit of annual increments admissible and payable to the Petitioners for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-21 and regularly thereafter every year.
(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and cirucmstances of the case; and
(iii) Award exemplary costs of the Writ Petition to the Petitioners."
5. Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the impugned order, has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order dated 18.03.2020 annexed as Annexure No. 01.
II. To issue a writ, order direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 08.12.2017 so far as it relates to the petitioner by summoning the order in original from the Respondent
III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Manager(General) w.e.f. 08.12.2017 or from the date when juniors to the petitioner has been promoted to the Post of Manager(General)/Regional Manager;
IV. To issue an ad-interim mandamus to the aforesaid effect; and
V. Issue any other order as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the reliefs sought for in both the Writ Petitions are different and both the Writ Petitions have been filed on different causes of action. Therefore, neither the appellant has concealed any material fact while filing Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025, nor is the Writ Petition barred by the principles contained in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned Counsel for the State Warehousing Corporation have submitted that a copy of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020, quashing whereof has been sought in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025, was annexed with Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022 and it was open for the appellant to have sought the relief of quashing of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020 in Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022. Therefore, as per the learned Counsel for the respondents, the prayer for quashing of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020 made in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025 is barred by the principles contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC.
8. It is true that for invoking the extraordinary discretionary Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner should approach this Court with clean hands, by disclosing all relevant and material facts and he should not conceal any such fact. Concealment of any relevant and material fact would dissuade this Court from exercising its discretion in favour of such a litigant. However, a petitioner would be held guilty of concealment of fact and the Writ Petition would become liable to be dismissed on this ground only if it is found that some 'relevant and material fact' has been concealed. 'Relevant and material facts' would mean the facts which may have a bearing upon the decision of the Writ Petition.
9. The fact that earlier a Writ Petition had been filed by the appellant seeking the relief of payment of annual increments, which Writ Petition had been dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition and in furtherance of the aforesaid liberty, a fresh Writ Petition has been filed before this Court at Allahabad seeking the relief of annual increments, in which the appellant is a co-petitioner, would not be a fact which may be relevant and material for adjudication of the prayer for quashing of the Government Order dated 18.03.2020; the recommendations of the DPC dated 18.12.2017; and for issuing a direction to consider the appellant's promotion on the post of Manager (General) with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted to the aforesaid post, as prayed in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025.
10. Therefore, having given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons assigned by the Writ Court in the impugned order dated 14.02.2025, we find ourselves unable to agree with the aforesaid view taken by the Writ Court and we are of the considered view that mere non-mention of a previous Writ Petition claiming the relief of annual increment having been dismissed with the liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition, and a Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid prayer having been filed before this Court sitting at Allahabad in furtherance of the aforesaid liberty, would not amount to concealment of a 'relevant and material fact' and the Writ Petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of concealment of such a fact.
11. So far as the second ground mentioned in the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 for dismissal of the Writ Petition is concerned, suffice it to refer to Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. which provides as under: -
2. Suit to include the whole claim.
(1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs- A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision would reveal that it mandates that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of 'the cause of action'. It obviously means that when more than one reliefs are based on the same cause of action, all those reliefs should be included in the same suit. In case a plaintiff claims any particular relief in furtherance of a cause of action and he omits to claim another relief based on the same cause of action, he cannot file a fresh suit for that relief, which was based on the same cause of action. However, where two reliefs are based on different causes of action, different suits, or for that matter, different Writ Petitions, can be filed for such reliefs.
13. When we examine the relief claimed by the appellant in pending Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022 vis-a-vis the reliefs claimed in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025, it appears that the cause of action for filing Writ-A No. 2847 of 2022 at Allahabad is the denial of annual increment whereas the cause of action for filing Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025 before this Court at Lucknow is the denial of promotion to the appellant. Both the Writ Petitions are based on different causes of actions and, therefore, the principles contained in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. are not attracted in these circumstances.
14. Therefore, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the Writ Court that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant is barred by the principles contained in Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the special appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 1027 of 2025 is set aside and the Writ Petition is restored for being heard and decided by the Writ Court.
16. The opposite parties to the Writ Petition may file their respective counter affidavits in response to the pleas taken in the Writ Petition within a period of three weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Let the Writ Petition be listed before the appropriate court after the aforesaid period.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) (A. R. Masoodi J.)
Order Date: 11.03.2025
Fahim/-
