Delhi High Court
Raj Kishore Singh & Others vs The Central Civil Services Board on 16 January, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* 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dismissed as withdrawn, as the counsel for the appellants herein had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
