The principle of limitation and constructive res judicata applied to prevent repeated litigation on the same cause of action.

Chander Shekhar, J.

1. Ram Singh by this writ petition impugns order dated 23rd December, 2015 whereby his OA No.4138/2013 has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner, who had earlier filed OA Nos.2322/2012 and 3337/2012. OA No. 2322/2012 was dismissed as withdrawn as recorded in the order dated 17th July, 2012 after the Tribunal had noted that the original application was barred by limitation and no application had been filed for condonation of delay. OA No.3337/2012 was filed along with an application M.A. No.2785/2012 seeking condonation of delay. This OA and the application were dismissed vide order dated 10th October, 2012 recording that there was delay of nearly 15 years. Reference was also made to the order dated 17th July, 2012 by which OA No.2322/2012 was dismissed. It was observed that the petitioner was unable to explain and show reasonable and satisfactory cause for the prolonged delay. The petitioner had referred to the communication dated 30th August, 2012 and the fact that the he had earlier challenged the order dated 9th April, 2012. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the plea of the petitioner that the cause of action had arisen in 2012.

3. The petitioner thereupon had filed W.P. (C) No. 4268/2013, which was dismissed by a speaking order dated 9th July, 2013, recording that the cause of action had accrued on 31st July, 1997, when persons junior to the petitioner were promoted. Albeit, the petitioner had filed OA No.3337/2012 after 15 years without giving satisfactory explanation for the said delay. The Court also recorded that the writ petition impugning order dated 10th October, 2012 passed by the Tribunal in the said OA was challenged after nearly 9 months. Pertinently, the petitioner did not raise any other ground or contention, except for stating that the petitioner was an innocent and hardworking person, but this it was observed would not explain the quietus for 15 years. Thereafter, Review Petition No.531/2013 was filed by the petitioner, which too was dismissed vide order dated 23rd October, 2013. This order records that the petitioner had claimed consequential benefits including all promotions. The Division Bench had dismissed the prayer for review, rejecting the plea that a wrong impression had vitiated the order of which review was sought.

4. Undeterred, the petitioner thereafter filed the aforesaid OA No.4138/2013, which as noticed above, was dismissed vide order dated 22nd December, 2015.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer made in OA No.4138/2013 is different from the prayer made in OA No. 3337/2014 and our attention was drawn to prayer clause of OA No. 4138/2012. For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the prayer clause of the two OAs as mentioned in the writ petition itself:-

	"OA 3337/2012	4138/2013
(i)	Quash the impugned Memorandum/order dated 30.08.2012, 09.04.2012, 10.02.2010 and 21.09.2011 passed by the Respondents.	(a) Call for the record of the case and quash DPC proceedings as intimated vide letter dated 21.09.2011 by the Respondent; and/or
(ii)	Issue direction to the respondents to promote the from 31.07.1997 and grant the all promotion benefits since then.	(b) Quash Appellate order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the Respondents; and/or
(iii)	Grant cost in favour of the.	(c) Quash adverse remarks awarded to the in the year 2000 as intimated to the vide letter dated 21.09.2011 by the Respondents; and/or
(iv)	Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also granted in favour of the in the interest of justice."	(d) Direct the respondents to consider the, afresh and trea