Successive original applications on the same cause of action are barred by the principle of res judicata.

Thaneshwar Prasad, an employee of the Geological Survey of India (GSI), went missing on 30.09.2001

The respondent department issued a charge memo for unauthorized absence and subsequently removed him from service on 29.07.2004

After seven years, his wife (Smt. Bhama Devi) filed a writ petition (WP No. 17402/2012) seeking retiral benefits and compassionate appointment, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her representation

The representation was rejected on 03.06.2014

The petitioner subsequently filed OA No. 662/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed on 13.09.2021 on the grounds of res judicata

Without challenging the 2021 dismissal, the petitioner filed a fresh OA No. 316/2021 challenging the same termination and the 2014 representation rejection

This second OA was also dismissed by the CAT based on res judicata

The present writ petition challenges that dismissal

1. Whether the subsequent Original Application (OA No. 316/2021) is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata due to the previous dismissal of OA No. 662/2017

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of claiming terminal benefits

The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), including the principle of constructive res judicata, which prevents parties from re-litigating matters that were or ought to have been raised in prior proceedings to ensure finality of litigation

It relied on Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorajin Debi regarding the need for finality in judicial decisions

State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organization regarding the maxims preventing double vexation

State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain which extended constructive res judicata to writ petitions

the court referenced Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the person claiming an individual is alive if they have not been heard of for seven years

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to adjudicate the claim but failed to follow the correct procedural path. When OA No. 662/2017 was filed, the petitioner became aware of the rejection of their representation (dated 03.06.2014) but failed to amend that OA or withdraw it with liberty to file afresh

Since the dismissal of OA No. 662/2017 on 13.09.2021 was never challenged in a higher forum, it attained finality

The Court observed that filing OA No. 316/2021 for the same relief—challenging the 2004 removal and 2014 rejection—constituted an attempt to re-agitate settled issues, squarely attracting the bar of res judicata

While the Court acknowledged the legal presumption of death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, it held that such a mandate does not override procedural bars created by successive litigations on the same cause of action

The Court held that the petitioner could not file a fresh OA (No. 316/2021) after the previous OA (No. 662/2017) was dismissed and remained unchallenged

the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek a formal declaration of "civil death" of Thaneshwar Prasad from a competent civil court and subsequently pursue appropriate legal remedies based on that declaration. No costs were awarded