A successive application seeking substantially identical reliefs is barred by constructive res judicata.

The applicant, a retired Yoga Teacher of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, filed the present Original Application seeking reliefs relating to payment of balance gratuity, GPF dues, pension fixation and arrears, grant of Super Senior Scale, and interest thereon.

Earlier, in OA No. 4264/2017, the applicant had sought substantially similar reliefs, including payment of balance gratuity, GPF and pension dues, interest, and grant of Super Senior Scale.

By order dated 5 December 2017, the Tribunal disposed of that application without adjudicating the merits and directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 19 September 2017 by a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days.

In the present proceedings, the respondents objected to maintainability, contending that the application was barred by constructive res judicata and that the applicant should have pursued the remedy arising from the earlier order.

The applicant argued that the earlier application had not been decided on merits and that the direction to decide his representation had allegedly not been complied with.

He also explained that prolonged illness had prevented him from pursuing the earlier proceedings.

Whether the present Original Application, seeking substantially the same reliefs as those claimed in OA No. 4264/2017, was barred by the principle underlying constructive res judicata?

Whether the applicant could institute a fresh Original Application without first pursuing the remedy or course of action arising from the Tribunal’s order dated 5 December 2017?

The Tribunal applied the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly Explanation IV, which treats as directly and substantially in issue any matter that might and ought to have been raised as a ground of attack or defence in the former proceeding.

Although the earlier application had been disposed of without a decision on merits, the Tribunal applied the underlying principle of constructive res judicata to prevent the applicant from reopening substantially the same grievance through a successive proceeding while bypassing the remedy or procedural course already available under the earlier order.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle that a litigant cannot pursue parallel or successive proceedings for substantially identical reliefs when an earlier judicial order has prescribed the appropriate course to be followed.

The Tribunal compared the reliefs claimed in the two applications and found them substantially identical, particularly the claim for balance gratuity with interest; the only material variation was the increased rate of interest claimed in the present application—24% instead of 12%.

It further noted that the earlier order had specifically directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation and therefore furnished an available course of action to the applicant.

The fact that the earlier application had been disposed of without examining the merits did not, in the Tribunal’s view, justify filing a fresh application for substantially the same reliefs without first pursuing the earlier order.

The explanation based on illness was held insufficient to justify bypassing the remedy arising from the order dated 5 December 2017.

Accordingly, the present application was treated as an impermissible attempt to reopen the same grievance and was held to be hit by the principle underlying constructive res judicata.

The application was accordingly dismissed.

However, the applicant was granted liberty to pursue, in accordance with law, the order dated 5 December 2017 passed in OA No. 4264/2017.