Claims for pension revision based on unauthorized ad-hoc service are barred by constructive res judicata.

The applicant, a retired Senior Postmaster, was promoted from ASPO to PSS Group ‘B’ on an ad-hoc basis on November 21, 2005

He was regularly promoted to the same cadre on August 26, 2008, and retired on April 30, 2010

Following his retirement, the Respondents recovered ₹44,690 from his gratuity because his ad-hoc promotion exceeded one year without the mandatory approval from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) as required by the OM dated August 18, 2004

The applicant previously challenged this recovery in O.A. No. 480/2014, where he specifically prayed for the regularization of his ad-hoc service from 2005 to 2009

While the Tribunal in that instance quashed the recovery and ordered the release of the withheld amount, it did not grant the prayer for regularization of the ad-hoc period

The applicant subsequently filed the present O.A. seeking a revision of his pensionary benefits based on the last pay drawn during that ad-hoc period, effectively seeking the regularization that was previously denied

1. Whether the present application is barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata given the previous litigation in O.A. No. 480/2014

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to have his pension fixed based on a pay scale attained during an ad-hoc promotion that extended beyond one year without DoP&T approval

DoP&T OM dated August 18, 2004, which mandates that ad-hoc promotions are limited to one year and automatically cease unless advance approval for extension is obtained from the DoP&T

The doctrine of res judicata and the "Henderson Principle," as affirmed in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, which prevents the relitigation of issues that were or should have been raised in prior proceedings

The legal maxim "Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum" (what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly), citing Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association

Administrative errors in pay fixation can be rectified at any time, per Raj Kumar Baltra v. State of Haryana

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s current claim for pension revision is essentially a backdoor attempt to regularize his ad-hoc service—a relief he specifically sought but was not granted in his previous litigation (O.A. 480/2014)

Since the applicant accepted the earlier judgment which limited relief to the refund of recovered amounts without addressing regularization, the matter attained finality under the principles of res judicata and 'issue estoppel'

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant's stay in the PSS Group 'B' post beyond one year was unauthorized under the DoP&T OM dated August 18, 2004, as no approval for extension was sought or granted

The Tribunal emphasized that executive authorities cannot grant benefits contrary to statutory rules and that employees have no right to retain financial advantages resulting from administrative errors in pay fixation

The court concluded that the applicant could not claim pensionary benefits based on a pay scale he was not legally entitled to hold beyond the initial one-year ad-hoc period

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of