Facts
The applicant, R.Y. Devashetti, retired as Deputy Postmaster (SB), HSG I
Source reference: p.1He was appointed as Postal Assistant LSG on 13.09.2004, while his junior, Shri Kiran Kumar, was appointed as Postal Assistant LSG on 10.12.2004
Source reference: p.2The applicant was senior to Shri Kiran Kumar in the gradation list as of 01.07.2009 (Sl. No. 65 vs. Sl. No. 82)
Source reference: p.3The applicant opted for Postmaster Grade, while Shri Kiran Kumar continued in the general line
Source reference: p.3Following the merger of Postmaster Grades with General Line cadres on 10.07.2019, Postmaster Grade II was merged with HSG II, and Postmaster Grade I was merged with LSG
Source reference: p.3The applicant was granted the benefit of HSG I (NFG) from 02.12.2020, whereas Shri Kiran Kumar received it from 17.11.2018
Source reference: p.3The applicant's previous OA No. 475/2021 was disposed of on 19.04.2022, as the respondents had promoted him to HSG I (NFG) with effect from 02.12.2020, the date his immediate junior, Shri Amruthalingam, joined HSG I (NFG)
Source reference: p.4-5, 7The applicant accepted this without filing a review or writ petition
Source reference: p.7The current OA was filed after the applicant's retirement
Source reference: p.5, 8Issues
1. Whether the present application seeking HSG I (NFG) benefit from 17.11.2018 on par with Shri Kiran Kumar is maintainable, given the prior disposal of OA No. 475/2021
Source reference: p.7-82. Whether the principles of res judicata apply to bar the current claim
Source reference: p.73. Whether the claim made piecemeal is permissible
Source reference: p.8Law Applied
The court applied the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have already been decided by a competent court
Source reference: p.7It also applied the principle that no claim can be made in piecemeal, meaning all claims arising from a single cause of action must be included in one application
Source reference: p.8Implicitly, the court relied on the concept of estoppel, where a party is precluded from asserting a claim or right that is inconsistent with a position previously taken, or a fact previously established
Source reference: p.7Reasoning
The Tribunal found that the applicant's previous OA No. 475/2021, seeking promotion on par with his juniors, was disposed of on the specific understanding that he was promoted to HSG I (NFG) from 02.12.2020, the date his immediate junior, Shri Amruthalingam, joined
Source reference: p.7The applicant accepted this order without further challenge (no review petition or writ petition)
Source reference: p.7The current OA seeks the same benefit from an earlier date (17.11.2018) on par with a different junior (Shri Kiran Kumar)
Source reference: p.7The Tribunal reasoned that having accepted the earlier order for promotion effective 02.12.2020, the applicant is estopped from re-agitating the issue, and the principles of res judicata apply
Source reference: p.7Furthermore, the court held that claims cannot be made piecemeal; if the applicant knew Shri Kiran Kumar's promotion date, he should have included that in the prior OA
Source reference: p.8The current application, filed after retirement, attempts to reopen issues that were previously settled
Source reference: p.8Holding
The OA stands dismissed
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's current claim was not maintainable due to the prior disposal of OA No. 475/2021, which had attained finality, and because the principles of res judicata applied
Source reference: p.7, 8The court found that the applicant could not make a piecemeal claim or reopen issues after accepting an earlier order
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
R Y DEVASHETTIvsDEPARTMENT OF POSTS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in