2022 Supreme(SC) 655

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Central Bank of India & Others - Appellants
Versus
Dragendra Singh Jadon - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20995 of 2017)
Decided On : 02-08-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where an objection to maintainability of any application/suit on an issue of law is not expressly dealt with, but application/suit is entertained and disposed of on merits, objection is deemed to have been rejected.
(2) There is distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel – Where cause of action for initiation of proceedings is a distinctive cause of action, principles of res judicata would not apply.
(3) There is difference between reappointment and reinstatement.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 – Issue of law – Where an objection to maintainability of any application/suit on an issue of law is not expressly dealt with, but application/suit is entertained and disposed of on merits, objection is deemed to have been rejected – Mere fact that an issue may not specifically have been dealt with, or reasons not specifically disclosed for decision on that issue, would not vitiate a judgment and order that is otherwise correct. (Para 13)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Principles of res judicata are attracted where matter in issue in later proceedings have directly and substantially been in issue in earlier proceedings, between same parties, in a competent forum having jurisdiction – Res judicata debars Court from exercising jurisdiction to determine lis, if it has attained finality between the parties – There is distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel – In case of issue estoppel, a party against whom an issue has been decided would be estopped from raising same issue again – Where an issue could have been raised in earlier proceedings, but has not been raised, principle of constructive res judicata would be attracted to deny relief, for it is not policy of law that multiple proceedings should be initiated in Court in relation to same cause of action – Where cause of action for initiation of proceedings is a distinctive cause of action, principles of res judicata would not apply. (Paras 16 and 17)

(C) Service Law – Reinstatement in service without back wages – There is difference between reappointment and reinstatement – Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status – Order of reinstatement puts a person back to same position – Tribunal had granted Respondent, relief of reinstatement – Considering that Respondent had not actually rendered service to Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in intervening period, Tribunal denied him back wages – Tribunal and High Court (both Single Bench and Division Bench) have in effect and substance found termination of service of Respondent to be wrongful – Appellant-Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing Respondent from service, to deny him benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 20, 21, 22 and 23)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is against a judgment and order dated 3rd April 2017 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior dismissing Writ Appeal filed by the Appellants against an order dated 7th August 2015, passed by Single Bench, allowing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Respondent.

By the impugned judgment and order, Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages.

Findings of Court:

Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, Division Bench of High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date of removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages.

Result : Appeal dismissed.