Successive representations cannot reopen concluded claims; constructive res judicata bars repetitive litigation.

The applicants were contractual Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, engaged from 2009–2010 after responding to hospital advertisements, participating in interviews and being found medically fit.

They claimed that they performed duties substantially similar to regular employees but were denied parity in pay and allowances, including DA, HRA, HPCA/PCA, Washing Allowance and Transport Allowance.

In OA No. 2966/2013, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ entitlement to consolidated remuneration at par with the pay fixed for regular appointees; the Delhi High Court dismissed the respondents’ writ petition against that order on 8 January 2016.

Certain pay and allowances were thereafter extended to the applicants.

The applicants subsequently filed OA No. 218/2020 seeking enhanced allowances and other benefits. On 24 January 2023, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide their representation.

The respondents rejected the claim, principally on the ground that the applicants were not performing the same duties as regular employees.

The contempt petition arising from alleged non-compliance was closed on 20 December 2023, with liberty to challenge the respondents’ decision in appropriate proceedings.

The applicants then instituted the present OA challenging the rejection and seeking various allowances at par with regular employees.

1. Whether the present Original Application was maintainable when the applicants’ claim for parity in pay and allowances had been raised in earlier proceedings and the respondents’ subsequent order was passed pursuant to a direction to consider their representation.

2. Whether the liberty granted while closing the contempt proceedings permitted the applicants to reopen and re-agitate the entire substantive controversy concerning parity with regular employees.

3. Whether the applicants were substantively entitled to DA, HRA, HPCA/PCA, Washing Allowance, Transport Allowance and other benefits at par with regular employees.

The Tribunal applied the principles of finality of litigation, constructive res judicata and prevention of abuse of process.

Relying on M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 408, it held that an adjudication is conclusive not only regarding matters actually decided but also matters that might and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceedings.

It also relied on Amita Kumar v. Cabinet Secretariat, OA No. 2864/2016, decided on 12 March 2024, for the proposition that a subsequent Original Application is barred where the relief sought had already been claimed or ought to have been claimed in earlier proceedings.

Although Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 makes the Tribunal not strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal held that the underlying principles of constructive res judicata and judicial finality continue to apply.

Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which discourages piecemeal litigation arising from the same cause of action, was also noted.

The Tribunal treated the applicants’ earlier proceedings as having already addressed the substantive controversy concerning parity in pay and allowances.

OA No. 2966/2013 had resulted in directions concerning remuneration, had survived challenge before the Delhi High Court and had been implemented by the respondents.

The later OA and contempt proceedings did not create an unrestricted right to reopen all issues merely because the respondents passed a rejection order pursuant to a direction to consider the applicants’ representation.

The liberty granted in the contempt proceedings was limited to challenging the decision taken by the respondents; it did not authorise re-litigation of claims already raised, decided or capable of being raised earlier.

Permitting the present OA would allow successive representations and proceedings to circumvent the requirement that litigation must attain finality.

The Tribunal therefore declined to examine the correctness of the respondents’ reasoning or the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to the claimed allowances.

The OA was accordingly dismissed on the ground of finality of litigation, constructive res judicata and prevention of repeated litigation.

The Tribunal expressly left open the merits of the applicants’ claims, including whether they performed duties comparable to regular employees and whether they were entitled to DA, HRA, HPCA/PCA, Washing Allowance, Transport Allowance or other benefits.

There was no order as to costs.