HC dismisses two petitions, shuts door on repeat writs

Making it clear that litigation cannot be endlessly pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that successive writ petitions seeking the same relief are barred by the principle of “res judicata”.

The ruling came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed two petitions filed by two employees of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, seeking the release of consequential benefits of regular pay, annual increments and other admissible allowances following their regularisation.

The case

The petitioners moved the court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ to grant all consequential benefits of regular pay, increments and allowances. Their counsel contended that they had been working since 1995 and were entitled to benefits from July 29, 2011, when their juniors had been regularised.

Objection by nigam

Counsel for the nigam and other respondents argued that the writ petitions were barred by res judicata –– a Latin term meaning “a matter already judged”. It is a legal principle that bars the same dispute between the same parties from being heard again, once a court has given its final decision. The doctrine ensures finality in litigation, avoids repeated trials, and promotes judicial efficiency.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner-employees had earlier filed petitions, claiming regularisation and consequential benefits. The Coordinate Bench, after examining the issue had, on February 14, granted only “notional regularisation of the petitioners from July 29, 2011, on the ground of parity”.

The nigam’s counsel further pointed out that the petitioners in the earlier writs had not only prayed for regularisation but also for “fixation of pay in regular scale, arrears, seniority on the basis of the revised pay scale including all the consequential benefits associated with regularisation.” The relief was considered and partly granted, leaving no scope for a fresh petition. The proper remedy, if the petitioners were still aggrieved, was to pursue an intra-court appeal.

Court’s analysis

After hearing both sides, Justice Brar held: “The present petition is in teeth of the principle of res judicata.” The Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled on the binding nature of res judicata even in writ jurisdiction.

Observing that the petitioners had already invoked the high court’s jurisdiction earlier for the very same relief of consequential benefits and increments, Justice Brar held that the controversy stood concluded by the February 14 order.

Concluding that it was not appropriate to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in the circumstances, the court dismissed both petitions.