The principle of res-judicata and the requirement for prompt implementation of judgments were central to the court's decision.

Rajiv Sharma, J-The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents No.3 and 4 had filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.530/1985 in this Court. The petitioner was added as respondent No.2 therein. The CWP No. 530/1985 was transferred to the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribune and was assigned TA No. 807/1986. The same was decided by the learned Tribunal on 20.12.1991. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:

“The orders dated June 6, 1966, September 16, 1969, September 22, 1969, December 13, 1970 and the notification dated August 29, 1974, November 30, 1974 and order dated August 1, 1979 conferred certain legal valuable rights in favour of both the petitioners and if the respondent No.2 was aggrieved by the same it was necessary for him to have approached the Courts at the earliest.

In view of above discussion, it is clear that the order dated June 7, 1985 (Annexure PG-1) June 14, 1985 (Annexure PG-2) and June 27, 1985 (Annexure PG-3) are illegal and are hereby set aside. The application is allowed with no order as to costs.”

2. In sequel to the judgment rendered in TA No. 807/1986, the respondent-State had issued order on 30.5.1992 whereby the reversion of the petitioner was ordered with effect from 17.5.1966. The petitioner was directed to work out and intimate the over payment of pay and allowances made to him as a result of promotion to the post of District Public Relations Officer with effect from 17.5.1966 onwards. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.5.1992 by way of the present petition.

3. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the order dated 30.5.1992 is illegal and arbitrary thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of order dated 30.5.1992 on the basis of the judgment rendered in TA No. 807 of 1986 decided on 20.12.1991.

5. I have herd the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. It is not in dispute that the promotion of the petitioner was quashed and set aside by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 807/1986 as per the operative portion of the judgment reproduced hereinabove. The order dated 30.5.1992 was consequential order. The petitioner has assailed this order. Mr. D.P. Gupta has argued that before the issuance of order dated 30.5.1992, review Departmental Promotion Committee was required to be convened. He has faintly argued that the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has over looked very important aspect while delivering earlier judgment that the adverse entries recorded against the petitioner were expunged.

7. The petitioner was added as respondent No.2 in TA No. 807/1986. The learned Tribunal by a well reasoned judgment dated 20.12.1991 has quashed his promotion. He had also sought review of the judgment and the same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 24.3.1992. The judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal has attained finality. The petitioner has not assailed the judgment passed in TA No. 807/1986 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

8. The Court is of the firm opinion that the present petition is not maintainable. The issue raised in this petition has already been adjudicated upon effectively by the learned Tribunal in TA No. 807/1986. The present petition is hit by res-judicata. The petitioner cannot rake up the issue which has already been adjudicated upon and has attained the finality. The case has been decided between the same parties. The orders passed by the competent courts of law are required to be implemented. In case the person like petitioner is encouraged to re-agitate the matters already concluded, it would lead to chaos and there would be no finality attached to the orders/judgments passed by the competent courts of law. It appears that the respondent-State was remiss in implementing the judgment dated 20.12.1991 a