STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MADHO RAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The difficulties inherent in the practical application of the otherwise well-settled principles of constructive res judicata again come to the fore in these two LX/LX/G630/80/AAJ/LGC connected letters patent appeals preferred by the State of Punjab and by Madho Ram Gupta, assailing the same judgment of the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment will govern both.

(2.) The matrix of facts on which there is indeed little controversy, is that Madho Ram Gupta had been recruited as an overseer in the Public Works Department (Buildings & Roads Branch) in the State of Punjab. He was confirmed in that post on 13th October, 1951, and was allowed officiating promotion as Sub-Divisional Officer on 7th July, 1961'. However, he was reverted to his substantive rank of overseer by an order dated 19th June, 1962. Against this order of reversion, he preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 294 of 1965, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 26th May, 1967, and the orders of reversion were quashed. However, in the meantime, Madho Ram Gupta was served with a notice dated 3rd March, 1966, by the Chief Engineer, P. W. D., for retiring him as an overseer on attaining the age of 55 years with effect from 26th June, 1966. Aggrieved by this notice of premature retirement, Madho Ram Gupta preferred a Second Civil Writ Petn. No. 1634 of 1966 on 28th July, 1966. In this writ petition, he primarily challenged his premature retirement on a twin ground firstly, that the compulsory retirement was by way of punishment and, secondly, that the order was discriminatory. What calls for pointed mention here is that in this writ petition, he did not raise the plea that he being a Sub-Divisional Officer could not be retired by the orders of the Chief Engineer because the appointing authority for the post of Sub-Divisional Officer was the State Government and not the Chief Engineer. This second Writ Petn. (No. 1634 of 1966) came up for decision by a Division Bench and was dismissed by a considered judgment on the 22nd January, 1968. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by his learned counsel were repelled and it was, in terms, held that the order of compulsory retirement was not by way of punishment and also there was no discrimination.

(3.) More than one year and nine months after the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, Madho Ram Gupta filed a suit to challenge afresh the order of his compulsory retirement and seeking a declaration to the effect that he continued working as a Sub-Divisional Officer till the 26th June, 1969, when he would have attained the age of 58 years. Consequentially, he also claimed a money decree for Rs. 38,000 with costs and interest, for arrears of pay in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer for sometime and Overseer for the other periods and also on account of travelling allowance, house rent, gratuity and other counts. The State contested his claim and raised a number of preliminary objections which led to the framing of six preliminary issues to which a reference is unnecessary, as the only issue material now for consideration was, admittedly, Issue No. 6 in the following terms: "Whether the decision of Hon'ble High Court dated 22-1-1968 operates as res judicata?"