Liberty to file a representation precludes dismissal of a subsequent claim as barred by res judicata.

The Petitioner originally filed OA 671/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") seeking appointment as an OT Technician

On 24 April 2009, the Tribunal directed his appointment but declined to grant retrospective effect from 12 October 2002 at that stage, instead granting the Petitioner liberty to represent his claim to the authorities

Following an unsuccessful representation, the Petitioner filed OA 3859/2015 for retrospective appointment

The Tribunal dismissed this second OA in limine on 16 October 2025, holding it was barred by constructive res judicata and limitation, asserting that the 2009 order had "in one way" already adjudicated the claim

The Petitioner challenged this dismissal before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the subsequent OA for retrospective appointment was barred by the doctrine of res judicata given the specific liberty granted in the previous order

2. Whether the OA was barred by limitation when computed from the date of the Tribunal's previous order

The court applied the principles of res judicata and judicial review of administrative tribunal orders.

res judicata does not apply if a court/tribunal expressly declines to adjudicate an issue and grants liberty to the party to agitate it subsequently

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

limitation cannot be arbitrarily computed from an earlier judicial order that specifically allowed for a future representation

The High Court found the Tribunal’s reasoning "completely incomprehensible"

It observed that the 2009 order had explicitly stated it was "not possible" to take note of the retrospective claim "in these proceedings" and invited a representation

Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding that the issue was "specifically adjudicated" was factually incorrect based on a plain reading of paragraphs 12 and 13 of the original order

The Court further rejected the Tribunal’s calculation of limitation starting from 24 April 2009, stating it was unaware of any law supporting the computation of limitation for a new challenge based on the date of a prior order that granted liberty to represent

Consequently, the dismissal without a hearing on merits was legally unsustainable

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 16 October 2025

The Court restored OA 3859/2015 to the Tribunal for a decision on merits, directing the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and requesting the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks

Both parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13 August 2026