Res Judicata Bars Re-litigation of Absorption Date After Multiple Unsuccessful Challenges.

The Applicant, Rajesh B Nandagad, working as an Assistant Audit Officer on deputation to the Principal Director of Audit, South Western Railway, Hubballi for over 14 years, sought absorption in the deputed post.

His initial request was not considered, leading him to file O.A. 170/00859/2015, which was allowed on January 25, 2016, directing his absorption.

This order was challenged by the Respondents in Writ Petition No.107532/2016 (S-CAT), leading to the matter being remitted back for reconsideration by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal re-affirmed its earlier order on February 28, 2018.

A subsequent Review Application No. 170/0034/2018 filed by the Respondents was dismissed on October 25, 2018.

Following these proceedings, the Respondents issued an order on September 15, 2022 (Annexure-A6) absorbing the applicant as an Assistant Audit Officer, Group 'B' (Gazetted), with effect from March 12, 2021, which was the date he passed the SAS (Railway Audit) Exam.

The applicant did not challenge this absorption order directly at the time.

The applicant, however, filed M.A. 6/2022 in O.A. No. 859/2015, challenging the compliance order dated September 13, 2022, arguing that the absorption date of March 12, 2021, was not in conformity with the Tribunal's previous order.

The Tribunal disposed of the M.A. on December 19, 2022, granting the applicant liberty to challenge the said compliance order.

Consequently, the applicant filed the present Original Application challenging the communication dated March 20, 2024 (Annexure-A9), seeking absorption from October 15, 2007, with all consequential benefits, claiming it as the deemed date of his absorption.

The respondent no. 1 was deleted from the party array on October 10, 2025.

Whether the communication dated March 20, 2024 (Annexure-A9) issued by the second Respondent should be quashed as unconstitutional and against rules.

Whether the Respondents should be directed to order for the deemed absorption of the applicant in the post of Assistant Audit Officer from October 15, 2007, and to fix his pay in the promoted post from the date of deemed absorption with all consequential benefits.

The court primarily relied on the principles of res judicata, which bars parties from re-agitating issues that have received a final judgment by a competent court on merit.

It also applied the principle of estoppel, stating that the applicant, having accepted the absorption without protest as per the order dated September 15, 2022, containing a condition for absorption from March 12, 2021, is barred from challenging subsequent communications on the same issue.

The rules for absorption and promotion to the post of Assistant Audit Officer/Section Officers' Service, as per the Recruitment Rule for Deputation/Absorption, and Para 48 of the Railway Audit Manual, which indicated eligibility for those who passed the Subordinate Accounts Service or Subordinate Audit Service Examination, were also considered.

The court noted that the applicant's current claims appeared to be an "afterthought," as he did not seek regularization from the first day in his previous litigations that commenced in 2015.

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate his claim that he had consistently sought regularization from 2007 in prior rounds of litigation.

The Tribunal underscored that the absorption order dated September 15, 2022 (Annexure A-6), clearly stated that the absorption would be effective from March 12, 2021, which was the date the applicant passed the SAS (Railway Audit) Examination.

The applicant did not challenge this specific absorption order directly but instead challenged a subsequent communication dated March 20, 2024.

The court held that by not challenging the absorption order dated September 15, 2022, and subsequently getting absorbed "without any protest," the applicant was estopped from raising the same issue in fresh litigation multiple times.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Original Application suffered from serious mis-joinder of parties, as the applicant failed to include other potentially affected senior employees in his cadre, whose seniority could be impacted by retrospective absorption.

These factors led the court to conclude that the case was seriously hit by the principles of res judicata, as it constituted an attempt to re-litigate the same matter with a changed timeline after a final judgment.

The court found no merit in the case, particularly because the applicant's attempt to seek absorption from an earlier date constituted re-agitating a settled matter, which was barred by the principles of res judicata.

The applicant was also estopped from challenging the absorption date after accepting the absorption order dated September 15, 2022, which set the effective date as March 12, 2021, without protest.

All associated M.As, if any pending, were disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs was made.