Smt. Pooja Saxena vs Union Bank Of India & Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 6906 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          W.P.(C) No. 9910/2016

%                                                       10th November, 2016

SMT. POOJA SAXENA                                               .....Petitioner

                           Through:      Mr. V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate.

                           versus

UNION BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS                                ..... Respondents

                           Through:      Mr. O.P. Gaggar and Ms. Runashree
                                         Saikia, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) No. 9910/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 39421/2016 (for stay under Section 151 CPC)

1. There are two reliefs which are claimed in this writ petition filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the

respondent no.1/Union Bank of India. The first relief is the claim for

regularization and the second relief is for claiming of a variable component

of monetary entitlement payable as per the contract of employment.

2. So far as the grant of regularization of services of the petitioner are

concerned, it is seen that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being

W.P. (C) No. 4056/2014 for the same relief and that writ petition was

dismissed by a Single Judge of this Court vide Judgment dated 5.8.2014,

and which is annexed at page 87 to 93 of this writ petition. Therefore, the

decision in the earlier writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4056/2014 dated

5.8.2014 operates as res judicata against the petitioner and petitioner cannot

file a writ petition again for the same cause of action and relief. I may note

that in the Judgment dated 5.8.2014 a learned Single Judge of this Court has

relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and

Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to hold that a contractual employee cannot be

regularized by giving permanent employment in the post which was

contractual by nature. The first relief, therefore, prayed by the petitioner

cannot be granted.

3. So far as the second relief is concerned, counsel for the respondent

no.1 says that as per the contract of employment whatever were the

monetary amounts which were payable to the petitioner stand duly paid and

the necessary calculation chart to this effect will be sent to the petitioner

within eight weeks from today. It is also stated that if by any advertence

any amount remains to be paid to the petitioner under the variable

component payment under the contract, such payment will be made to the

petitioner within the period of eight weeks. I may also note that in the entire

writ petition there is complete vagueness as to which and what is the

variable component part, how the same is due to the petitioner, etc. and

which details of cause of action have not been stated, but in any case,

directions are issued because counsel for the respondent no.1 says that there

is a variable component payable to the petitioner as per term of the contract.

4. Ordinarily this Court would have imposed costs upon the petitioner

for frivolous litigation, but the writ petition is only dismissed subject to the

aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

NOVEMBER 10, 2016                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AK