Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Mohan Singh vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 6 May, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061898-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:061898 -DB
(102) LPA-1700-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 06.05.2024
Inder Mohan Singh
......Appellant(s)
Versus
The New India Assurance Company and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant (s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-4308 & 4309-LPA-2023
Applications for condonation of delay of 5 days in re-filing and
82 days in filing the appeal, are allowed, in view of the averments made in the
applications, duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 5 days in
re-filing and 82 in filing the appeal is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
LPA-1700-2023
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2023 passed in CWP-1730-
2023 filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the
writ petition, whereby the claim was to treat the writ petitioner's service for
release of all consequential benefits has recorded a finding that it could not be
disputed by the counsel that the writ petitioner's services were terminated on
26.03.1999 and he had challenged the same by filing a civil suit which was
dismissed on 15.10.2003 (Annexure P-8). It was noticed that the Appellate
Authority had also dismissed the statutory appeal on 18.11.2003. Another suit
had also met with the same fate on 31.10.2008 (Annexure P-9) and, therefore,
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061898-DB
LPA-1700-2023 (O&M) -2-
while applying the principle of res judicata the writ petition was dismissed. It
was also noticed that against the said judgments appeals have been preferred
and matter had gone upto the Apex Court and, therefore, issue of termination
of services had attained finality.
2. We have perused the paper-book. A perusal of the pleadings in
the first civil suit would go on to show that it was the appellant/plaintiff's own
case that he was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.03.1999. The
second suit also talks about the order dated 26.03.1999, whereby the plaintiff
had been removed from service, which suit also met with the same fate of
dismissal. RSA-3765-2011 filed by the respondent-company was allowed,
whereas RSA-4554-2011 filed by the appellant was dismissed by a common
order on 06.10.2015 (Annexure P-10). The matter was taken to the Apex
Court whereby SLP-(C)-2666-2016 was dismissed on 05.02.2016 and even
the Review Petition-(-C)1938-2016 was dismissed on 19.04.2016 (Annexure
P-11). The audacity as such to file a writ petition once the litigation had
culminated upto the Apex Court and to plead that he was still in service is
beyond imagination.
3. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge did not err in any manner in dismissing the writ petition. The
finality of litigation can never come to an end, if such kind of litigation is
permitted, rather we are surprised that the learned Single Judge was very
benevolent not to impose exemplary costs. Resultantly, we also dismiss the
appeal at the initial stage in limine and do not impose any costs. All pending
civil miscellaneous applications including CM-4310-LPA-2023 filed for
placing on record additional documents are disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS BAHL)
06.05.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
