The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and issue estoppel in barring the petitioner's petition, as well as the requirement of meeting the minimum qualifying service for entitlement to pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns judgment dated 31.01.2023 whereby petition filed by petitioner challenging his dismissal/discharge from the Indian Air Force w.e.f. 09.01.1998 and claim for pro rata pension has been dismissed applying the principles of res judicata and also delay and laches.

2. Petitioner was dismissed/discharged from the Indian Air Force by order dated 12.12.1997 stating "his services no longer required - unsuitable for retention in the IAF" w.e.f. 09.01.1998. He was struck off strength on 09.01.1998 itself.

3. Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14/1998 and WMP No. 7 & 8 of 1998 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

4. Thereafter, it is stated that petitioner moved to Delhi to his home town after being discharged from Indian Air Force. As per learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner instructed his counsel in Madras to withdraw the petition as he intended to challenge the order before the High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition before this Court being WP (C) No. 7131/2000.

5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that Tribunal has noticed that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner before the Madras High Court was not withdrawn but was dismissed on merits and consequently, this Court also dismissed the Writ Petition (C) No. 7131/2000 holding that since petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court which petition had been dismissed, petition before this Court (WP (C) No. 7131/2000) was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and also noticed that all the issues raised in the petition filed in Delhi were also the issues that had been raised in the writ petition filed earlier in the Madras High Court.

6. The Tribunal has noticed the order passed by this Court dismissing the petition of the petitioner and consequently held that after dismissal of two petitions, petitioner could not have approached the Tribunal and the petition before the Tribunal was barred by the principles of res judicata.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not have copy of the order passed by the Madras High Court and as per his instructions, said petition was withdrawn and thereafter petition was filed in Delhi.

8. Since copy of the order was not available with learned counsel for petitioner, we summoned the record of WP (C) No. 7131/2000 and find that the copy of the order passed by the Madras High Court dated 14.01.2000 was filed by the respondent in that petition along with an affidavit. Perusal of the order passed by the Madras High Court shows that the petition was not dismissed as withdrawn nor was any liberty sought for filing a fresh petition. Said petition had been dismissed after consideration on merits.

9. Since the Madras High Court had dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on merits, petitioner could not have approached this Court by way of WP (C) No. 7131/2000 as said petition was barred on the principles of res judicata.

10. We may also note that petitioner approached the Tribunal not only after dismissal of the petition by the Madras High Court but also after dismissal of the WP (C) No. 7131/2000 by this Court, on both the counts, petitioner was precluded from approaching the Tribunal by way of a fresh petition seeking the same relief as petitioner had sought before the Madras High Court as well as this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

11. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar & Anr., 2005(1) SCC 787 wherein it has been held as under:

29. There is a distinction between "issue estoppel" and "res judicata". (See Thoday v. Thoday, [(1964) 1 All ER 341: (1964) 2 WLR 371: 1964 P 181 (CA)].)

30. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to determine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the doctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If