Delhi High Court
Yash Pal vs Director General, Council Of ... on 24 November, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11175/2016
Date of decision: 24th November, 2016.
YASH PAL ..... Petitioner
In person.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC &
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ANR ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitoiner, Yash Pal has appeared in person and we have
examined the merits of the impugned order dated 9 th September 2016,
whereby OA No.4190/2013 has been dismissed as not maintainable
on the ground of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
2. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the tribunal.
3. The petitioner is a retired employee from the National Physical
Laboratory, a constituent unit of the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research. He had earlier field an OA Nos.2990/1991
claiming that he had been wrongly denied promotion under the New
Recruitment and Assessment Scheme. He had filed another Original
Application, OA No.1757/1994, challenging the vires of the letter
dated 5th March, 1983 by which cut-off date for educational
qualification was fixed as 31st December, 1981. These OAs were
dismissed by the tribunal vide order dated 8th August, 1997. The
petitioner had then preferred a Writ Petition(C)No.4817/1997, which
was dismissed. SLP filed against the order of dismissal was also
dismissed.
4. The petitioner thereafter initiated the third round of litigation by filing
OA No.1755/2003 challenging the New Recruitment and Assessment
Scheme. Primarily the ground of challenge relating to the cut-off date
for acquisition of educational qualification fixed as 31 st December,
1981. The petitioner had acquired the said qualification on 1 st
September, 1982, i.e. after the cut-off date. This OA was dismissed
vide order dated 6th May, 2004.
5. Order dated 6th May, 2004 and another order passed by the tribunal
dated 9th September, 2005 relating to promotion under the Merit and
Normal Assessment Scheme implemented w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, were
challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition Nos.10395/2004 and
23790/2005. These writ petitions were dismissed vide judgment
dated 23rd May, 2011 passed by one of us (Sanjiv Khanna, J.),
upholding the order passed in OA.No.1755/2003 on the principle of
res judicata and constructive res judicata.
6. The petitioner, who appears in person accepts that he had preferred an
SLP against this judgment, which was dismissed.
7. Notwithstanding the said dismissal, the petitioner in 2013 filed OA
No.4190/2013 again challenging the New Recruitment and
Assessment Scheme which was in operation from 1st November, 1981
till 31st March, 1988. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had retired on
31st January, 2013.
8. Petitioner submits that the principles of res judicata and constructive
res judicata have been wrongly understood and were not applicable.
In other words, the decision in OA NO.1755/2003 was incorrect and
that the judgment dismissing the Writ Petition No.10395/2004 dated
23rd May, 2011 is contrary to law or incorrectly apprieciates the
principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
9. We do not think that the petitioner can be permitted and allowed to
raise the same plea and contention once again. There has to be end to
the litigation, and the issue once decided cannot be made subject
matter of a new litigation after the earlier orders have attained finality.
10. The tribunal in the impugned order has stated that the petitioner is a
cronic litigant and has imposed costs of Rs.50,000/- while dismissing
the OA. The judgment dated 23rd May, 2011 dismissing the writ
petition (C)No.10395/2004 and 23790/2005, refers to a list of cases
filed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, we would
reproduce the said list.
"
Sl.No. Applicant Vs. Respondent Case No.
01. Yash Pal vs CSIR & Ors OA No.2990/1991 with
OA No. 1757/1994
2. Yash Pal vs CSIR & Ors RA No. 219/1997 in OA
No. 2990/91 with OA No.
1757/94
3. Yash Pal vs CSIR & Anr CWP No. 4817/1997
4. Yash Pal vs DG, CSIR & LPA No. 512/2000
Anr.
5. Yash Pal vs DG, CSIR & SLP (C) No. 4127/99
Ors
6. Yash Pal vs DG, CSIR RA No. 6616/2000
7. Yash Pal vs Dr. R.A. CP (Civil) 383 of
Mashelkar, 2001
DG, CSIR & MA No. 1647 of 2001 OA
Ors No. 2990 of 1991
8. Yash Pal vs DG, CSIR CMP No. 4971/99 & RA
No. 6616/2000
9. Yash Pal vs -do- CW No. 5282/2001
CM No. 9053/2001
10. Yash Pal vs DG, CSIR & OA No. 2493/2001
Ors MA No.2095/2001
11. Yash Pal vs -do- CM(RA) No.
11180/01 in CW No.
5282/2001
12. Yash Pal vs -do- OA No. 399/2003
MA No. 420/2003
13. Yash Pal vs -do- OA No. 1755/2003
MA No. 1486/2003
"
11. However, at the same time, the petitioner, we find is 64 years of age
and had retired from service on 31st January, 2013. The petitioner has
pleaded before us that he has lost his wife. It is stated his son is
studying and he has to meet his expnses. He would face financial
difficulty. In these circumstances, we waive the costs imposed by the
Tribunal.
12. The writ petition is disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2016
NA/ssn
