[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs Indian Red Cross Society, District ... on 1 December, 2025
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-3221-2016
Davinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch Mansa and another ...Respondents
2) CWP-12169-2013
Harparveen Kaur ....Petitioner
Versus
Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch Mansa and another ...Respondents
3) CWP-20616-2016 (O&M)
Sunita ....Petitioner
Versus
Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch Mansa and another ...Respondents
Reserved on: 30.10.2025
Pronounced on: 01.12.2025
Uploaded on: 02.12.2025
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: None for the petitioner
(in CWP-12169-2013).
Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-3221-2016 &
CWP-20616-2016).
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Preet Agroa, Advocate and
Ms. Priya Kaushik, Advocate
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2025 04:36:55 :::
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -2-
for the respondents-Indian Red Cross.
Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate
for the respondent-Bank.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This order shall dispose of all the above mentioned writ petitions
as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose a common question of law.
However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-3221-2016.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned order dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure P-14) whereby respondent No.1-
Indian Red Cross Society has requested respondent No.2-Bank to consider
adjusting the petitioner for employment for the lack of vacancies in the former
and because their appointment was not made against sanctioned posts.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The respondent-Bank, vide letter dated 12.06.1997 (Annexure P-1)
requested respondent-Indian Red Cross Society to appoint Clerks and send
them on deputation to the former. Accordingly, respondent-Indian Red Cross
Society published an advertisement dated 18.06.1997 (Annexure P-2) inviting
applications for the post of Clerks. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the
petitioner was hired as per the procedure laid down in the Indian Red Cross
Society District Branch, Bathinda Service Rules. The appointment order dated
24.06.1997 of the petitioner is available as Annexure P-3. However, soon after
his appointment, the petitioner was relieved vide letter dated 03.07.1997
(Annexure P-4) and deputed to respondent-Bank vide order dated 07.07.1997
(Annexure P-5).
2 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -3-
4. Since his deputation, the petitioner had been working as a whole
time Clerk with the respondent-Bank, performing duties similar to those of
other Clerks therein. The petitioner approached the District Commission, in his
capacity as the President of the respondent-Indian Red Cross Society requesting
to be absorbed back into the Society. However, they were sent back to the
respondent-Bank, extending their deputation period from time to time. The
petitioner also submitted various representations requesting for equal pay for
equal work, being a regularized employee since the completion of his
probation, but to no avail. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Punjab
State Human Rights Commission which issued a recommendation dated
26.08.2004 (Annexure P-10) to respondent No.1 to absorb him as and when
posts fall vacant. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court by means
of CWP-16275-2012 titled 'Davinder Singh and others vs. Satluj Gramin
Bank and others' which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail
appropriate remedy vide order dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure P-11). Thereafter,
the respondent-Bank repatriated the petitioner to his parent organization i.e.
respondent No.1-Indian Red Cross Society vide order dated 01.04.2013
(Annexure P-12).
5. On 02.04.2013, the petitioner reached the office of respondent
No.1 to join duty but was not allowed to do so. Vide impugned order dated
02.04.2013 (Annexure P-14), respondent No.1 requested the respondent-Bank
to consider adjusting the petitioner in its office where he has served for 16
years, as no vacancies existed with the former. Further, it was also mentioned
that the petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned post but was
recruited against vacancies in the respondent-Bank. Hence, the present writ
petition.
3 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -4-
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the
petitioner has been abandoned by both the respondents as respondent No.2-
Bank repatriated him to his parent organization i.e. respondent No.1-Indian Red
Cross Society vide order dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P-12). The said order
was passed in contravention of principles of natural justice as neither was the
petitioner provided with an opportunity to be heard nor was a show cause
notice ever served on him. Vide impugned letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure
P-14), respondent No.1 concedes that the petitioner had been working with
respondent No.2-Bank for about 16 years and that his recruitment was made
against the vacancies in the respondent-Bank. Since no vacancies were
available with the respondent-Indian Red Cross Society, it practically refused to
take the petitioner back; rather a request was made to adjust him in the office of
respondent-Bank.
7. It was further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a
temporary basis with a probation period of 02 years. Therefore, after
completion of the probation period, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as
regular/confirmed employee of respondent-Indian Red Cross Society and to the
regular pay scale for the post of Clerk from the date of his appointment.
Further, it was respondent No.1-Indian Red Cross Society that had been
extending the deputation period of the petitioner from time to time for the
benefit of the respondent-Bank. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a
Clerk by respondent No.1-Indian Red Cross Society at the instance of
respondent No.2-Bank and he had been discharging the duties of a Clerk with
the latter. As such, he ought to be granted regular pay scale for the said post by
4 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -5-
the respondent No.2-Bank on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as well
as deputation allowance, cash allowance and computer allowance as paid to
Clerks working as Cashiers in the respondent-Bank. The salary of the petitioner
was paid by the respondent-Bank however, the term 'deputationist' was added
to the post of the petitioner to provide an excuse to the respondent-Bank to not
regularize him in spite of the permanent nature of his work and continuous
service. As a matter of fact, the Clerks who were appointed in the year 1997 or
later by both respondent-Society and respondent-Bank, respectively have been
continuing in service and have earned multiple promotions and financial
benefits while the petitioner has been forced to serve at fixed salary, without
any promotional avenues.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Indian Red
Cross Society as well as counsel for the respondent-Bank inter alia contended
that the present writ petition is not maintainable as a similar petition i.e., CWP-
16275-2012, on the same subject matter, filed by the petitioner was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure P-11). However, no
liberty was granted to the petitioners therein to agitate the same claim before
this Court. Rather, the liberty granted was with respect to seeking an
"appropriate remedy in accordance with law."
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their able assistance. In the present case, the petitioner(s) had
previously moved this Court vide CWP No. 16275 of 2012, titled as 'Davinder
Singh And Ors. vs. Indian Red Cross Society Distt. Branch Mansa And Ors.'
The aforesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.03.2013
5 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -6-
(Annexure P-11) without liberty to file a fresh petition on the same subject
matter. The said order is reproduced below:
" Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners
be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty
to seek an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly."
10. It is settled law that a fresh writ petition is not maintainable in
respect of the same subject-matter if the earlier writ petition had been
withdrawn without obtaining permission of the Court to file a fresh petition. A
two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service
vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, 1987(1) SCC 5, speaking
through Justice E.S Venkataramiah, has observed as follows:
"9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing
a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition
can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this
point the decision in Daryao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we
are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 Order 23 of the
Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to
cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res
judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It
would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting
tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to
permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the
withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to
file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal
does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the
petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition
when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the
High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not
maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the
earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a
6 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -7-
fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated
in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition
involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner
prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to
enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether.
We, however, leave this question open." (emphasis supplied)
11. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhbir Kaur vs.
State of Punjab 1996(4) SCT 781, while relying on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service (supra) reiterated this
position of law. Speaking through Justice G.S. Singhvi, the following was held:
"5. Since there is nothing in the order dated 20.8.1996 to indicate that
the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the
departmental authorities or with permission to institute a fresh petition,
the dismissal of writ petition on 20.8.1996 will have to be treated as un-
conditional. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that in addition to what has been recorded in the
order sheet dated 20.8.1996 the court had made some observations
which should be read as a part of the order of the court and relief
should be given to the petitioner ignoring the fact that previous writ
petition filed on the same subject matter stands dismissed as
withdrawn.
6. In State of Maharashtra v. Ram Dass Shrinivas Nayak and another,
AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1249, a similar attempt was made before the
Apex Court to dra the court into controversy about the exact happening
in the proceedings of the High Court. Their Lordships repelled such
attempt by observing:
"The court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges
recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. It
cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by
statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the
Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or
admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject.
The principle is well settled that statement of fact as to what
transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court,
are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict
such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks
7 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -8-
that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a
judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still
fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very
Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement
made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been
made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If
no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there."
Since the writ petition No. 12632 of 1996 was dismissed as withdrawn
on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and no
permission was given to the petitioner to institute fresh writ petition on
the same subject matter, we have no hesitation to dismiss this writ
petition as not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 88,
wherein their Lordships observed as under:
"In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the
court by instituting suits again and again in the same cause of
action without any good reason the Civil Procedure Code insists
that he should obtain the permission of the court to file a fresh
suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in
Order 23 Rule 1(3). The principle underlying the above rule is
founded on public policy, but it is not the same as the rule of res
judicata. This principles underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 should
be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases
of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res
judicata but on the ground of public policy. That would also
discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics.
In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to
permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 once again. While the withdrawal
of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file
a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a
petition under Article 32 since such withdrawal does not amount
to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 should be deemed
to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause
of action relied on in the writ."
For the reason enumerated above, the writ petition is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
8 of 9
CWP-3221-2016
and other connected cases -9-
CONCLUSION
12. Clearly, CWP No. 16275 of 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 01.03.2013 without any liberty to file a fresh petition on the
same subject matter. As such, the present petition cannot be entertained by this
Court in terms of the settled law. Accordingly, without going further into the
merits of the case, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
13. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected
cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
01.12.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
