1

IN THE SUPEREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2633 OF 2006

RAMESH KUMAR ... APPELLANT

VERSUS  

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

The appellant, appointed as an Assistant Director of Physical Education in

Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, claimed  revised pay scales at Rs.  550-900

w.e.f.  14.7.1979,  Rs.700-1600  w.e.f.  1.4.1980,  Rs.  2200-4000  w.e.f.  1.1.1986  and

Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987. His request for grant of the said revised pay scales was

rejected by the University by communication dated 10.04.1991.  The said rejection

was challenged by the appellant in Civil Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 in the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana. The writ petition was dismissed on 05.08.1992. The

appellant challenged the decision of the High Court in Special Leave Petition (C)

No.16068 of 1992. This Court dismissed the SLP.

2. The  appellant  thereafter  started  a  second  round  of  litigation.  He

approached the Civil Court(Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Rohtak) in Civil Suit

No.194  of  1993  for a declaration that the University's  action issuing letter dated

10.04.1991 refusing the revision of  pay scales was illegal, null and void and for a

2

direction awarding pay scales  of  Rs.  550-900  w.e.f.  14.7.1979,  Rs.700-1600  w.e.f.

1.4.1980,  Rs.  2000-4000  w.e.f.  1.1.1986  and  Rs.3000-5000  w.e.f.  14.7.1987.  On

contest, by a considered judgment the said suit was dismissed on 09.09.2002.

3. During the pendency of the suit  a representation filed by the appellant was

considered by the Executive Council of the University and a resolution was passed on

20.08.1997 acceding to the request of the appellant for grant of the said pay scales Rs.

550-900 w.e.f. 15.11.1979, Rs.700-1600 w.e.f. 1.4.1980, Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986

and Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f.  14.7.1987. But as there was no representative of the State

Government present  in the said meeting and as the prior approval of  the State

Government had not been granted, the resolution was not given effect having regard

to the Section 9F and 11A of the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975. There is

no  dispute  that  the  resolution  was  not  given effect.  Apparently that  is  why the

appellant neither sought withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the resolution was

passed accepting his request nor sought amendment raising any additional ground

that the University had accepted his claim. He proceeded with the suit and as stated

above the suit ended in dismissal on 09.09.2002.  Not being satisfied,  the appellant

challenged the dismissal of the suit by filing an appeal before the Additional District

Judge, Rohtak. The said appeal (Civil Appeal No.96 of 2002/2003) was dismissed on

05.09.2003.  The appellant did not challenge the said dismissal of the appeal and the

said dismissal thus attained finality.  

4. Thereafter, the appellant commenced the third round of litigation. He filed

another Writ Petition -W.P.No.18778 of  2003 for a direction to the University to

3

grant the said revised pay scales in terms of the decision of the University contained

in resolution dated 20.08.1997.  It  may be noticed that though the prayer was for

giving effect to the resolution dated 20.08.1997, the  prayer in effect was for grant of

revised  pay scales  Rs.  550-900  w.e.f.  14.7.1979,  Rs.700-1600  w.e.f.  1.4.1980,  Rs.

2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and Rs.3000-5000 w.e.f. 14.7.1987, which had been earlier

rejected by Courts in two rounds of litigation. The High Court therefore dismissed

the writ petition on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant for the very same

relief and the appeal therefrom having been dismissed,   the writ petition was not

maintainable. Dealing with the contention that the writ petition was with reference to

a different subsequent cause of action based on the  resolution dated 20.08.1997, the

High Court observed that the plaint  ought to have been amended to include a relief

with reference to the resolution dated 20.08.1997 and that not having been done, the

claim cannot  be  revived  with  reference  to  the  resolution  dated  20.08.1997.  The

application for review filed by the appellant was also rejected on 26.06.1994.  The

appellant has challenged the order of dismissal of the writ petition and review petition

in this appeal by special leave.  

5. As noticed above, there have been three rounds of litigation seeking the

same relief. The first is Writ Petition No.4262 of 1992 and SLP(C)No.16068 of 1992

wherein the prayer has been rejected.  The second is in Civil Suit No. 194 of 1993 and

in Appeal No.96 of 2002/2003 which also ended in dismissal. The present third round

of litigation is for the very same relief. It is clear that the claim is liable to be rejected

having regard to  Section 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Even on merits, we find

4

that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The resolution dated 20.08.1997 could

not be given effect as  the requisite prior approval of the State Government was not

obtained and as a representative of the State Government was not present at the time

of such resolution. Therefore, Section 9F and 11A came in the way of giving effect to

the resolution. Even otherwise we find that the writ petition filed in the year 2003 to

enforce the resolution passed in 1997 nearly six years later, was  liable to be rejected

even on the ground of delay and laches. Viewed from any  angle the appeal deserves

to be rejected.  

6. Learned counsel for this appellant submitted that following the resolution

in the case  of the appellant,  relief has been given to someone else. Whether relief was

given to others or not, is totally irrelevant when considering the bar based on Section

11 and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.  Secondly, the relief that has been allegedly given in

other  cases  was  also  subject  to  the  State  Government's  approval  and  not

unconditional. In this case the contention of the University  is not that it has not

passed any resolution acceding to the appellant's request, but that it could not be

given effect for want of State Government's approval.  

7. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.

..............................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

..............................J. ( DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )

NEW DELHI, JUNE 24, 2008.