Important point
Doctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(i) Service Law—Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971—Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to State of Haryana—Appellants were appointed by Faridabad Development Board which was converted into Faridabad Notified Area Committee later on renamed as Faridabad Complex Administration and finally as Faridabad Municipal Corporation—Services of appellants were also transferred to the Area Committee—After coming into force of the Act, all the employees were transferred to the Complex Administration—Services of the existing staff of the Municipalities, Faridabad and Township were taken over by Faridabad Complex Administration—Appellants claim that they were entitled to all the benefits and facilities in the matters of pay, pension, gratuity etc. as extended and available to employees of the State Government—Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition—Some employees working with Faridabad Development Board whose services were transferred to Faridabad Complex Administration made representation to the Administration for grant of pensionary benefits—Civil suit filed by them was decreed—Division Bench set aside orders passed by the Single Judge—Whether Division Bench was justified in holding that appellants were not entitled to pension—(Yes)—Action of respondent Corporation cannot be described as arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
       Held : Having given anxious consideration, in our opinion, the Division Bench has not faulted in allowing the appeals filed by the Administration and in setting aside the decision of the learned single Judge. So far as res judicata is concerned, admittedly, no suit had been filed by the appellants in any court. A suit was instituted by certain employees which was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree was confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. Apart from the fact that the doctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, it has no application to the facts of the case. Neither the appellants were ‘parties’ to that suit, nor they are claiming through the plaintiffs of that suit. Again, that suit was not filed by the plaintiffs as a ‘representative’ suit. The decree in that suit, therefore, cannot operate as res-judicata. It is no doubt open to the appellants to rely on the said decision which had attained finality. In our opinion, however, the Division Bench was right and the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation is well-founded that the Court had not considered Rule 3.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Reading the judgment of the Court, it transpires that two contentions were raised before the Court. (Para 14)
       Since, in earlier matters, the attention of the Court was not invited to Rule 3.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and in particular Note 1 which excluded Municipal employees from payment of pensions, the Division Bench was right in holding that the appellants herein were not entitled to pension. As already observed, a three-Judge Bench of this Court also took a similar view and dismissed the appeal specifically observing that in view of statutory provision, the retired employees of the respondent-Corporation were not entitled to pensionary benefit which was introduced for the first time in April, 1992. The action of the respondent-Corporation, hence, cannot be described as arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, violative of Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution. (Para 25)
       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 11—Res-judicata—Inapplicability to the writ proceedings—Doctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution—Constitution of India—Article 226. (Para 14)

Judgment

C.K. Thakker, J.—Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on October 18, 2001 in several Letters Patent Appeals. By those orders, the Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge in various Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners and dismissed those petitions.

3. To appreciate the controversy raised by the parties, relevant facts of the first matter (S.L.P. No. 6360 of 2002) may be stated.

The said appeal is filed by one Hari Chand along with three appellants and legal representatives of one Mr. Gardia. From the record, it appears that these five persons were employees of the Faridabad Development Board which was converted into Faridabad Notified Area Committee, later on renamed as Faridabad Complex Administration and finally as Faridabad Municipal Corporation. The particulars of their service are as detailed below :

Appellant Name Date of Date of No. Appointment Retirement

A-1 Hari Chand 30.04.38 10.06.76

A-2 Sohan Lal 23.02.50 31.05.80

A-3 Roshan Lal 01.04.55 30.11.79

A-4 Jetha Nand 26.03.48 30.04.86

A-5 Gardia 01.07.54 31.07.83

4. It was the case of the petitioners (appellants herein) that they were appointed by Faridabad Development Board. On January 1, 1960, the functions of the Development Board were transferred to Notified Area Committee and services of the petitioners were also transferred to the Area Committee. After coming into force of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971 (Act 42 of 1971), all the employees were transferred to the Complex Administration. From the perusal of various provisions of the Act, it was clear, submitted the petitioners, that the function of Municipal Committee was taken over by respondent No. 2 under the Act of 1971. Services of the existing staff of the Municipalities i.e. Municipality of Faridabad and Township, Municipality of Faridabad Old and Municipality of Ballabhgarh were taken over by Faridabad Complex Administration. Those employees thus became employees of Faridabad Complex Administration. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to all the benefits and facilities in the matters of pay, pension, gratuity, etc. as extended and available to employees of the State Government as the conditions of services of the petitioners were governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana. The appellants, therefore, deserved to be treated at par with other Government servants of the State of Haryana. Though the petitioners made various representations to the second respondent for grant of pension, gratuity and retrial benefits, no action was taken by the Corporation. They were, therefore, constrained to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition. A prayer was made to declare that the petitioners were entitled to pensionary benefits as admissible to employees of Haryana Government and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to extend such benefits to them.

5. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Administration, inter alia contending that the petitioners were not entitled to benefits as available to Government employees. According to the Administration, the petitioners could not be said to be Government employees. They were governed by Act of 1971 and their service conditions were regulated by the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under that Act, they were entitled to Contributory Provident Fund which was paid to them. It was, therefore, prayed that they had no cause of action against the respondent and the petitions were liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned single Judge, who heard the matter, allowed the petition. It was observed that some employees working with Faridaba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 732

Important pointDoctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (6)

Important point
Doctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.