The principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, and a previous order directing consideration of a case attains finality between the parties.

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 13-05-2011 (Annexure P/14) whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is rejected by the respondents.

2. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner's father was working as Line Assistant Grade-1 and died in harness on 11-11-1998. The petitioner preferred an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17-12-1998. This application was followed by another application filed on 14-01-1999 in a prescribed format. The petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment was not considered by the respondents on the strength of a decision taken by Circular dated 01-09-2000. The department by communication dated 22-03-2001 (Annexure P/3), informed the petitioner that because of financial crunch faced by department, by Circular dated 01-09-2000 the ban is being imposed on grant of compassionate appointment. This is also admitted between the parties that certain retiral dues of deceased employee were given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed WP. No. 15114/06 before this Court which was decided on 27-10-2006. This Court followed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of T. Swamy Dass v. Union of India 2002 (3) MPLJ 242 in WP. No. 6246/02 (Smt. Anupama @ Sadhna Pawar v. Chairman, MPSEB and others). In the said judgment, it was held that the policy which was prevailing at the time of death of an employee and at the time when the petitioner preferred the application for grant of compassionate appointment should be the basis for consideration of petitioner's claim. This Court in petitioner's case WP. No.15114/06 followed the ratio decidendi of T. Swamy Dass and Smt. Anupama @ Sadhna Pawar (supra) and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgments. In turn, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner by communication dated 23-01-2007. This order was again challenged by the petitioner by filing WP. No. 1928/07. This WP was disposed of by order dated 01-03-2011. This Court set aside the order dated 23-01-2007 and directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order within two months. In turn, the impugned order dated 13-05-2011 (Annexure P/14) is passed.

3. Shri Sanjayram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents are bound by the order passed in WP. No.15114/06. Thus, the policy of compassionate appointment which was prevailing at the time of submission of application for grant of compassionate appointment will prevail. The respondents did not take a decision on the said application promptly. If the decision would have been taken promptly before imposition of ban w.e.f. 01-09-2000, the petitioner's right of consideration would not have been denied. Reliance is placed on (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar).

4. Shri Prateek Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents-employer supported the order dated 13-05-2011. He submits that as per subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 2010 (3) MPLJ 213 (Bank of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Manoj K. Deharia & Anr.), the judgments of T. Swamy Dass and Anupama @ Sadhna Pawar (supra) are overruled. As per this Full Bench judgment, the right of consideration will be as per the policy which was prevailing on the date of consideration and not as per policy which was prevailing on the date of death of employee or on the date the application for grant of compassionate appointment was preferred.

5. No other point is pressed by the parties.

6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

7. It is seen that in the relief clause 7 (ii), the petitioner has made an incorrect prayer. It is totally foreign to the controversy in hand. However, in Para 1 of the petition, the petitioner has disclosed the date of impugned order and reply of the respondent