Subsequent claims seeking identical relief are barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata.

The petitioner, a former Loco Driver of the North Eastern Railway, was removed from service on 22 October 1975 under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, for misconduct, without a regular departmental enquiry.

His appeal was rejected, but the General Manager, on review, sympathetically directed his re-appointment on the same pay; he was re-appointed on 27 February 1978.

The petitioner subsequently sought conversion of his re-appointment into reinstatement.

His first application, OA No. 4 of 1992, was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 22 June 1993, holding that he had been removed for misconduct and was not a victim of Emergency-related excesses or the 1974 strike.

The Railway Board rejected the request under Rule 107 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, observing that he had received his settlement dues and was drawing pension according to his entitlement.

In 2025, the petitioner filed OA No. 050/000339/2025, again seeking conversion of his re-appointment into reinstatement and relying on a General Manager’s letter dated 22 April 1985 concerning treatment of certain breaks in service as non-working days.

The CAT dismissed the application as barred by res judicata. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

Whether the petitioner’s 2025 original application, seeking conversion of his re-appointment into reinstatement and consequential regularisation of the break in service, was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata in view of the dismissal of OA No. 4 of 1992?

Whether the General Manager’s letter dated 22 April 1985 entitled the petitioner to treatment of the period of break in service as non-working days or otherwise enabled him to overcome the bar of res judicata?

Whether any relief could be granted when the Railway Board’s decision dated 23 February 2005 rejecting condonation of the break in service had not been challenged?

The Court applied Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which embody the doctrines of res judicata and constructive res judicata: matters directly and substantially in issue, or matters which ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings, cannot be re-agitated in subsequent litigation between the same parties.

These principles apply to writ proceedings and proceedings before tribunals, as recognised in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715.

The Court also considered Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, under which removal could be ordered where holding a regular enquiry was not reasonably practicable.

Rule 107 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which permits relaxation of pension rules only where their operation causes undue hardship and the competent authority considers relaxation just and equitable.

The Court held that the substance of the petitioner’s subsequent claim was identical to the relief sought in OA No. 4 of 1992—namely, conversion of re-appointment into reinstatement.

That earlier application had been finally dismissed after the CAT found that the petitioner’s removal resulted from statutory disciplinary action for misconduct, and not from Emergency-related excesses or participation in the 1974 strike.

Therefore, the subsequent application was barred not only by direct res judicata but also by constructive res judicata because any related claim concerning the break in service ought to have been raised earlier.

The Court further found that the 1985 letter could not assist the petitioner because it was already in existence when the earlier OA was filed and, in any event, applied to employees whose service interruption arose from strike, stop-work or protest-related action.

The petitioner’s removal was instead for misconduct under Rule 14(ii).

Additionally, the Railway Board had already considered and rejected relaxation under Rule 107 in 2005, and that decision had never been challenged. Consequently, the petitioner could not obtain relief indirectly in the present proceedings.

It held that the 2025 OA was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, that the 22 April 1985 letter was inapplicable, and that the unchallenged Railway Board decision dated 23 February 2005 independently precluded the claimed relief.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, frivolous and vexatious, with costs.