The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of res judicata, which prevents the same issue from being raised in subsequent suits/proceedings once it has been tried and decided on merits and the decision has attained finality.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner-Dharmendra Kumar has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (herein after referred to as Tribunal) whereby O.A. No. 3533/2014, has been dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

2. It is stated that the Tribunal has committed a grave error by holding that the O.A. is barred by res-judicata, without appreciating the facts of the case on merits and ignoring that a fresh cause of action arose due to passing of order dated 05.03.2013 by which the juniors of the petitioner were regularised and confirmed whereas the petitioner was left out. Even otherwise, the cause of action is a recurring cause of action and denial of the relief on the ground of the res-judicata in the present case is wrong and unjust. The respondents cannot be allowed to perpetuate and commit illegality by granting benefit of regularisation to those junior to the petitioner. The petitioner has worked as a temporary employee for the last 21-22 years. Accordingly, he is legally entitled to regularisation in the backdrop of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon letter F. No. CCIT/CCA/KNP/24/2008-09/G-73 dated 19.12.2008 issued on the basis of the instructions vide DOPT O.M. No.49019/1/2006-Esst.(C) dated 11.12.2006 which stipulates that the government and their instruments should take steps to regularise as one time measure contractual employees who duly qualify in terms of statutory requirements and have completed 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is legally entitled to the benefit of the policy letter dated 19.12.2008 issued by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8081/2012 tilted as Union of India Vs. Raj Kumar wherein it has been held that a senior cannot be ignored for a benefit if such benefit is conferred on his junior.

3. The petitioner had sought the following relief in the O.A. No. 3533/2014:-

“(a) Summon the records of the case.

(b) Pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing/modifying the order dated 05.03.2013 with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and

(c) Pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the official respondents to modify the order dated 05.03.2013 and thereby incorporating the name of the humble applicant in the said order, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and

(d) Pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ modifying the order dated 05.03.2013, in terms of letter/order dated 05.02.1998 with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and

(e) Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

4. The petitioner has not denied and accepts that he was one of the co-applicants in OA No. 842/2009 and had sought relief of regularisation which is identical to the prayer made in 3533/2014. OA No. 842/2009 was dismissed and this order was not challenged by the petitioner. In these circumstances the Tribunal is right in holding that OA 3533/2014 was not maintainable and was barred by res judicata.

5. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he was one of the co-applicants in O.A. No. 842/2009 who had sought relief of regularisation, as was the prayer in OA No. 3533/2014. OA No. 842/2009 was dismissed as being bereft of merits. A perusal of the prayer clause in OA No. 3533/2014 would show that the petitioner, by means of the afores