The doctrine of res judicata and the limitation period for approaching the Tribunal are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting O.A. No.2427/2016, filed by him on two counts, firstly, that the issue raised in the said O.A. is identical to the issue raised by the petitioner in an earlier O.A. filed by him in the year 2014 i.e. O.A. 1307/2014 and therefore, the same is hit by the principles of res judicata; secondly, on the ground that the petition is barred by limitation. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2017, passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the review application filed by him, seeking review of the order dated 31.10.2017.

2. In the earlier O.A. No.1307/2014 filed by the petitioner in the year 2014, he had sought quashing of the order dated 04.03.2014, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, calling upon him to refund the over payment towards the pensionary benefits. Further, the petitioner had sought directions to the CRPF to accept his technical resignation for his deemed absorption in the respondent No.1/Sports Authority of India w.e.f. 01.04.1987. Lastly, the petitioner had sought issuance of directions to the respondent No.1/Sports Authority of India to calculate his revised terminal benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1987, in view of his deemed absorption from the said date, including arrears of pay, promotion and pensionary benefits.

3. The aforesaid O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 to the following effect:-

(i) Cheque No.015503 dated 16.03.2016 amounting to Rs.13,699/- issued in full and final settlement of the claim of the applicant was handed over to him in the Court.

(ii) The relief as claimed in prayer clause No.8(ii) of the OA regarding acceptance of technical resignation for deemed absorption from 01.04.1987, had been granted.

(iii) Respondents No.1 and 2 admitted that excess receipt on account of leave salary and pension contribution had been made to the Sports Authority of India.

(iv) The prayer claiming interest @ 12% per annum was opposed on the ground that as the petitioner had retired in the year 2009 and had elected to file the OA only in the year 2014, there was no question of awarding any interest to him.

4. The Tribunal disposed of OA No.1307/2014 recording that interest could only accrue on an incremental amount and instead of directing the respondents to calculate the interest on that amount, awarded cost of Rs.5000/- to the applicant in lieu of the payment of interest on the incremental amount. The Tribunal disposed of OA No.1307/2014 recording that since the petitioner had accepted the cheque under protest, in case of any grievance still surviving, he may seek legal recourse.

5. The subsequent O.A.No.2427/2016, filed by the petitioner is predicated on the aforesaid liberty purportedly granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2016.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principles of res judicata could not have been applied in the present case since no orders on merits was passed on any of the reliefs that were prayed for by the petitioner in the earlier O.A. In the subsequent O.A., the petitioner has prayed for considering his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Director w.e.f. 01.04.1987 and has raised a grievance that he was entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Director with consequential benefits w.e.f. 12.11.1987, the date when one Mr.S.K.Prashar, his junior, was granted promotion.

7. It is relevant to note that though the petitioner had flagged the aforesaid grievance of not being promoted before his junior, Mr.S.K.Prashar in the year 1987 in the earlier O.A. filed by him and even stated that he had submitted a representation dated 23.08.2001 to the respondents, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director from the date his junior had been promoted to the said post i.e. w.e.f 20.02.1992, no specific relief in this regard was prayed for in the ear