M B USGAONKAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition assails an order dated 02.09.2004 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CAT?), in OA No. 2089/2003, titled as "M. B. Usgaonkar vs. UOI &Ors.", dismissing the same on the ground that the petitioner ought to have raised the pleas raised in the present proceedings, in the earlier round of proceedings instituted on his behalf.

(2.) Upon a reading of the said impugned order dated 02.09.2004, it appears that the CAT was impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the Union of India that the application was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata because the relief that was being claimed was also claimed in an earlier OA instituted on behalf of petitioner being OA No.874/1994. It was therefore, predicated on a finding that when a particular relief prayed for earlier had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal at the instance of the petitioners, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the same had been refused. Resultantly, OA No.2089/2003 came to be dismissed as being barred by principle of constructive res judicata without going into the substantive issues raised therein.

(3.) Mr. Sachin Datta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites our attention to a Letter of Representation dated 23.11.2000 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence whereby it had been pointed out that the half pay leave salary of the petitioner had been wrongly calculated by deducting from his entitlement, pension which was deductable and was in fact deducted from his re-employment pay. It was, therefore, urged that the petitioner would be entitled to cash equivalent to half pay leave for 644 days in this behalf.