Point of law : That a person, who did not diligently prosecute his cause cannot claim any monetary benefit from an anterior date
Principle of res judicata is a doctrine to be invoked in public interest in as much as it is a fundamental principle of law that no one ought to be vexed twice in litigation on what is, essentially, the same cause of action
Where there is a substantial delay in claiming a particular benefit and where such a claim is not in respect of a continuing wrong, the monetary claim for pay fixation and other benefits could not be raised.

JUDGMENT :

Gopinath, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17004/2012. The appellant was the 2nd respondent in that Writ Petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer by an institution known as 'Guruvayoor Sahithya Deepika Sanskrit Vidya Peetham', in the year 1974. The said institution was taken over by the appellant, a deemed University, in the year 1979. The writ petitioner earlier approached this Court through W.P. (C)No.7261/2007, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 30.10.2007 finding that the writ petitioner was entitled to be absorbed as a Lecturer, on the take over of the Vidya Peetham by the appellant. It is also found that, if the writ petitioner is, based on such absorption as Lecturer, entitled to continue in service till the age of 62, she shall be allowed to continue in service till the age of 62. It is not disputed that this judgment has become final. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed representations claiming successive promotion as Associate Professor, Reader and Professor under the career advancement scheme (CAS) of the University Grants Commission (UGC). Ext.P.1 judgment was implemented through Annexure.R(1)(a) and by Annexure-R1(a) dated 03.03.2010, the writ petitioner and one other Lecturer were also granted senior scale on completion of eight years of regular service from the date of absorption. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she is entitled to be granted the benefits of Lecturer (Selection Grade) with effect from 16.7.1995, that of Reader with effect from 10.5.1996 and thereafter to the category of Professor under the provisions of the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission. The representation submitted by the writ petitioner as Ext.P5, on 9.3.2012 was rejected by the appellant University through Ext.P6 communication dated 14.6.2012. The writ petition was, therefore, filed challenging Ext.P6 and Ext.P.8 (minutes of the selection committee) which considered and rejected the case of the writ petitioner for placement in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader under the career advancement scheme of the University Grants Commission.

3. On a consideration of the matter, the learned single Judge found that the reasons mentioned for denying the benefits under the career advancement scheme for Selection Grade Lecturer/Reader etc., (which was primarily that the refresher courses undertaken by the Writ Petitioner in the year 1992 and 1995 could not be reckoned as she had not undertaken the refresher courses after placement in the senior course and after the requisite period of service) was found unsustainable. The learned Single Judge also found that persons similarly placed had been granted the benefits and it will be arbitrary and unlawful to deny such benefits to the writ petitioner.

4. We have heard Sri. N.M. Madhu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant University and Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

5. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent was clearly not maintainable as it is hit by the principles of res judicata and/ or constructive res judicata. He would also submit that the claims raised by the writ petitioner cannot be considered on account of the fact that, as is evident from the prayer made in the writ petition itself, the writ petitioner was claiming placement as Selection Grade Lecturer with effect from 16.7.1995 and as a Reader from 10.5.1996 in a writ petition, which has been filed only in 2012 and after the retirement of the writ petitioner. He would submit that the reliefs sought in the writ petition cannot be considered or granted on the principles akin to that contained in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in as much as the claims as raised in the present writ petition, out of which this appeal ari