[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Chandra Mohan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 12 February, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9026 of 2024
======================================================
Chandra Mohan Singh Son of Sri Lalan Singh, Resident of House No. N-
11/58 A-10-H, Ranipur, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Sinchai Circle, Water Resources Department,
Nawadah.
5. The Executive Engineer, Sinchai division, Water Resources Department,
Nawadah.
6. The Treasury Officer, Nawadah.
7. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), Bihar, Birchand Patel
Marg, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay interest on pension, gratuity, leave
encashment and arrears of pay/salary to the petitioner in the
wake of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this
Hon'ble Court on delayed payment of pensionary benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/10
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C.
No. 8676 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated
11.12.2018
, wherein, it was held that the recovery was
impermissible in the absence of any order of punishment.
Accordingly, the respondent authorities were directed to make
payment of the petitioner's retiral dues within a period of two
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said
order. Counsel further submits that even after specific order
passed by this Hon'ble Court, the payment has not been made to
the petitioner towards retiral dues. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed M.J.C petition bearing M.J.C. No. 4373 of 2019 which was
disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2022 with liberty to the
petitioner to file a writ petition for claiming the interest.
Counsel submits that since, the liberty has been granted to the
petitioner in the said M.J.C petition to file a writ petition for
claiming the interest, therefore, it is due to this reason, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which only
interest part has been demanded. Counsel further submits that
the provision of res judicata shall not apply in the present case,
as there was a specific liberty given by this Court in the M.J.C.
petition. In addition to that, he submits that section 141 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) is very much
clear that the proceeding provided in the C.P.C does not include
any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, he submits that the C.P.C has no role in deciding the
present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has
been specifically stated that the petitioner is not entitled for
claimed relief because he has not handed over the charge at
Dumka Irrigation Division and due to that, updated service book
is not available at the office of respondent no.5. It has been
further stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent no.5
had made ample efforts to obtain the updated service book of
the present petitioner and for that, respondent no.5 issued
several letters to the officials at Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division,
where the writ petitioner was in service prior to the joining at
Nawada Irrigation Division. It has also been stated in the
counter affidavit that the Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division
informed that there was a pending charge of writ petitioner and
it is also evident from the Letter No. 247 dated 11.04.2018 that
Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division requested the Nawada Irrigation
Division to send the writ petitioner to hand over his entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
charge so that service book of writ petitioner may be sent to the
Nawada Irrigation Division. Counsel, therefore, submits that the
delay in fixation of pension is attributable to the conduct of the
petitioner, and the State officials are not responsible for the
same. Therefore, there is no question of payment of interest to
the petitioner in the present case.
5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this
Court that the prayer made in earlier writ petition filed by the
petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of 2018 is that of payment of
pension, gratuity, leave encashment and statutory and panel
interest over his pensionary benefits. And, the observation made
by the Hon'ble Court in the said writ i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of
2018 vide order dated 11.12.2018, states as follows:-
"Considering the said facts, the recovery
being impermissible without any punishment
order, the respondent no.5, the Executive
Engineer is directed to make payment of the
retiral dues of the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Writ application is accordingly allowed."
6. From the prayer and the relief, it transpires to
this Court that the prayer of statutory and penal interest was
demanded by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of 2018 and from the relief portion, it
appears to this Court that on said statutory interest and penal
interest, there is absolutely no finding.
7. This Court hereby quotes the doctrine of res
judicata which is described in Explanation V of the section 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which categorically states
that "any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly
granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be
deemed to have been refused."
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the relief
which was demanded in the earlier writ petition on which no
finding has come, has been deemed to be refused, due to the
doctrine of res judicata in Explanation V of the section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
9. It is true that, the M.J.C. petition which has been
filed by the petitioner bearing M.J.C. No. 4373 of 2019 was
disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2022 with liberty to the
petitioner to file a writ petition for claiming the interest.
10. A legal question which comes before this Court
that whether a relief which has not been granted by the Original
Court (Writ Court here) can be granted by the M.J.C. Court (i.e.
Contempt Court here in the present case)? This Court is of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
opinion that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the court
who is taking the final decision.
11. So far as the contention of the petitioner that
according to section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
the provision of C.P.C is not applicable on the applications
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicability
of the doctrine of res judicata to writ proceedings has been
upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court of
India in case of Association for Democratic Reforms Vs.
Election Commission of India and Another, reported in (2025)
2 SCC 732, wherein it has been categorically held in paragraphs
107 to 111 as under:-
"107. It is pertinent to reiterate that the
doctrine of res judicata is applicable to writ
petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 as
well. The inclusion of the term "public
right" in Explanation VI of Section 11 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 aims to avoid
redundant legal disputes concerning public
rights. Given this clarification, there is no
room for debate regarding the application of
Section 11 to matters of public interest
litigation presented through writ petitions.
108. In Daryao v. State of U.P. [Daryao v.
State of U.P., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
(1962) 1 SCR 574] , a Constitution Bench of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
this Court emphasised that the rule of res
judicata is founded on significant public
policy considerations rather than being a
mere technicality. It was clarified that
petitioners seeking to challenge a decision
must present new grounds distinct from
those previously raised in order to escape
the bar of res judicata. The Bench
articulated this as follows:
"31. ... We are satisfied that a change
in the form of attack against the
impugned statute would make no
difference to the true legal position
that the writ petition in the High
Court and the present writ petition
are directed against the same statute
and the grounds raised by the
petitioner in that behalf are
substantially the same."
109. Another Constitution Bench of this
Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra
[Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'
Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC
715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339] followed the
aforesaid dictum to hold that the principles
of res judicata are not foreign to writ
petitions. A reference may be made to the
following paragraph :
"35. ... It is well established that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
principles of res judicata are
applicable to writ petitions. The relief
prayed for on behalf of the petitioner
in the present case is the same as he
would have, in the event of his
success, obtained in the earlier writ
petition before the High Court. The
petitioner in reply contended that
since the special leave petition before
this Court was dismissed in limine
without giving any reason, the order
cannot be relied upon for a plea of
res judicata. The answer is that it is
not the order of this Court dismissing
the special leave petition which is
being relied upon; the plea of res
judicata has been pressed on the
basis of the High Court's judgment
which became final after the
dismissal of the special leave petition.
In similar situation a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Daryao v. State
of U.P. [Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961
SCC OnLine SC 21 : (1962) 1 SCR
574] held that where the High Court
dismisses a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution after hearing
the matter on the merits, a subsequent
petition in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 on the same facts and for
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
the same reliefs filed by the same
parties will be barred by the general
principle of res judicata. The binding
character of judgments of courts of
competent jurisdiction is in essence a
part of the rule of law on which the
administration of justice, so much
emphasised by the Constitution, is
founded and a judgment of the High
Court under Article 226 passed after
a hearing on the merits must bind the
parties till set aside in appeal as
provided by the Constitution and
cannot be permitted to be
circumvented by a petition under
Article 32. An attempted change in
the form of the petition or the grounds
cannot be allowed to defeat the plea
...."
110. No doubt, res judicata bars parties
from re-litigating issues that have been
conclusively settled. It is true that this
principle is not rigid in cases of substantial
public interest and constitutional courts are
empowered to adopt a flexible approach in
such cases, acknowledging their far-
reaching public interest ramifications.
111. However, this standard is applicable
only when substantial evidence is presented
to validate the irreversible harm or
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
detriment to the public good resulting from
the action impugned. The Court must come
to the conclusion that the petition is not just
an old wine in a new bottle, but rather
raises substantial grounds not previously
addressed in litigation. Only under these
circumstances may it consider such a
petition; otherwise, it is within its authority
to dismiss it at the threshold."
12. In the light of the submissions made and upon
perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the firm view
that due to Explanation V of the section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 i.e. doctrine of res judicata which is applicable
in the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this writ petition is not fit to be allowed. Hence, this writ
petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
