HC shuts door on repeat writs: res judicata applies with 'greater force' under Article 226

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 High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for 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 the Nigam

At the outset, 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 on the same issue, 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 and carefully perusing the record, Justice Brar held: “The present petition is in teeth of the principle of res judicata.” The Bench asserted that 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. “Accordingly, the present writ petition, which seeks the same relief, is barred by the principle of res judicata and is thus not maintainable,” the court said.

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

 Why is the ruling important?

The ruling is not just about the two employees — it establishes that parties cannot keep filing fresh writs for the same relief once a matter is adjudicated. It reinforces finality of litigation. Many employees file multiple writs, but the ruling makes clear that courts will not entertain repetitive petitions and any unresolved issues must be pursued through appeal. This also ensures judicial and administrative efficiency.