A belated writ claim for interest omitted from earlier proceedings is barred by delay and constructive res judicata.

The petitioner, who had served as a Lecturer in Physics with respondent No. 2 for approximately twenty years, challenged his termination dated 31 July 2014 before the Educational Tribunal, Karnal.

The Tribunal set aside the termination and directed release of consequential benefits by order dated 6 March 2019. The respondents’ challenge was dismissed by the High Court, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2024, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 December 2024.

Separately, by order dated 14 November 2018, the Educational Tribunal treated the petitioner as regular with effect from 1 October 1999 and held him entitled to summer-vacation salary for 15 May 2000 to 30 June 2000, annual increments, and the first ACP benefit. The Tribunal did not award interest on these amounts.

The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, seeking interest at 12% per annum on alleged arrears of ₹12,56,465, including arrears of salary, annual increments and ACP scales.

The High Court applied the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which unexplained and inordinate delay may defeat a claim even though limitation statutes do not strictly apply.

Relying on Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225, and Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, 2024 AIR SC 2717, the Court held that writ relief may be denied to indolent litigants and fence-sitters.

The Court further applied constructive res judicata, including its application to writ proceedings under Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 17, State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806, and M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408.

Under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC, a ground or relief that could and should have been raised in the earlier proceeding is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue.

The Court also invoked Order II Rule 2 CPC, which prevents a party from instituting a subsequent proceeding for a claim arising from the same cause of action when that claim was omitted earlier.

The petitioner accepted the Educational Tribunal’s order granting regularisation-related benefits, summer-vacation salary, annual increments and ACP benefits, but did not challenge the Tribunal’s failure to award interest within a reasonable period.

His subsequent approach to the High Court, after an unexplained delay of more than seven and a half years, was therefore held to be barred by delay and laches.

No compelling or extenuating circumstance justified the delay.

In addition, the claim for interest was not pursued as part of the earlier relief concerning the Tribunal’s award.

Since the petitioner could have sought such interest in the earlier proceedings, the Court held that introducing it through a fresh writ petition amounted to raising a new claim arising from the same factual and legal foundation.

Such a course was barred by constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC and would permit successive litigation by adding new grounds or reliefs at a later stage.

It held that the petitioner’s claim for interest was barred both by unexplained delay and laches and by the principles of constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.