Continuing performance of perennial duties creates fresh cause of action, precluding res judicata in regularization claims.

The respondents were previously engaged by the appellant-authorities but were unsuccessful in a written examination for regular service.

In a 2014 proceeding (OA 351/00166/AN/2014), the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) declined to direct reinstatement but suggested the authorities consider engaging them as Daily Rated Mazdoors on compassionate grounds due to their financial hardship and age.

Following this, the respondents were engaged and performed duties continuously from June 4, 2015.

The respondents subsequently filed a new application seeking regularization based on the perennial nature of their work.

The CAT directed the appellants to consider their case for regularization in accordance with rules within six months.

The appellants challenged this direction before the High Court, arguing it was barred by the previous litigation.

1. Whether the subsequent application for regularization was barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata in light of the 2014 CAT order.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's direction to the authorities to "consider" the respondents' case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The court applied the doctrine of res judicata and constructive res judicata, which bars the relitigation of issues already decided or issues that ought to have been raised in prior proceedings.

It also applied the principle of "continuing cause of action," which exempts ongoing service-related claims from strict res judicata.

Additionally, the court exercised its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is reserved for correcting glaring miscarriages of justice, abuse of process, or patent jurisdictional errors.

The Court determined that res judicata did not apply because the relief sought in 2014 was limited to reinstatement and compensation, whereas the current prayer specifically sought regularization based on service rendered after 2015.

The Court reasoned that since the respondents have been working continuously, the cause of action is a "continuing one," rendering constructive res judicata inapplicable.

Regarding the merits, the Court found that the CAT had not yet finally adjudicated the right to be regularized but had merely directed the authorities to "consider" the case as per the rules and the perennial nature of the work.

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice that necessitated interference under Article 226, as the authorities still retained the power to decide the matter on its merits.

It held that the prayer for regularization was not barred by res judicata.

The Court ordered the appellant-authorities to comply with the Tribunal's direction to consider the respondents' case for regularization from June 4, 2015, based on existing rules and the nature of their duties.

The Court clarified it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the regularization itself, leaving it to the wisdom of the authorities. No order as to costs was made.