The principle of res-judicata bars re-litigation of claims already adjudicated, particularly regarding promotion and seniority after superannuation.

O R D E R :

The petitioner is seeking a declaration to declare the inaction on part of the 1^st respondent in not implementing the Circular No.SWS2/604(14)/76-PD, dated 07.02.1976. The petitioner claims that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner and passed the proceedings dated 13.10.2011. The petitioner is also claiming a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 for implementing the circular referred above. The petitioner also seeks to reckon the temporary service of the petitioner and to grant consequential benefits from the date of regular sanctioned post i.e., 30.10.1977. The petitioner also seeks a direction to place the petitioner over and above the respondents 3 to 7.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent/corporation as a Cleaner on 02.08.1975. The petitioner submitted his option to work in Kadapa Workshop in accordance with the option Circular No.115/75-76, dated 07.12.1976. Though the petitioner submitted his option form was retained in the capacity of Mechanic and only on 18.10.1977 the petitioner was transferred.

3. A seniority list was prepared and the petitioner submitted his objections. The same was rejected. The petitioner filed WP.No.6115 of 1982 seeking regularization of his services from the date of promotion i.e., 28.04.1976, the same was rejected. The petitioner filed another writ petition vide WP.No.15543 of 2009. This Court on 18.11.2009 directed the respondent/corporation to consider his case on par with respondent Nos.6 to 7 within a period of six weeks and pass appropriate orders, as the same was rejected then the petitioner filed CC.No.45 of 2010. The contempt case was dismissed as the appeal was pending.

4. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for considering his service from 30.10.1977 and also reckon the temporary service of the petitioner.

5. The respondent/corporation has filed a detailed counter and in the counter it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Cleaner at Ananthapur Depot on 02.08.1975. The petitioner subsequently passed Trade Test and was selected to the post of Mechanic and posted to Ananthapur Depot on promotion as Mechanic. The petitioner assumed the post of Mechanic on 28.04.1976. Options were called for from Mechanics and Shramiks to work at the Kadapa Work Shop. It was made clear that there was no guarantee of final seniority in Kadapa workshop and the same would be subject to availability of vacancies in that categories.

6. The petitioner was posted to Regional workshop at Kadapa on his own request on 05.10.1977. It was made clear to the petitioner that he would become the Juniormost Mechanic in the Regional Workship, Kadapa. It is also stated that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of transfer order and reported for work at Regional Workship, Kadapa on 24.10.1977.

7. It is submitted that the Regional Workship, Kadapa is a separate unit and the seniority of the employees is maintained as a different unit. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.6115 of 1982 claiming seniority and the same was dismissed, the writ appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the same was dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner filed ID.No.211 of 1989 before the Labour Court and the same was also dismissed.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.1443 of 2009 which was disposed off with a direction to the corporation to consider the representations of the petitioner to fix his seniority above the unofficial respondents. The respondent/corporation passed detailed orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 19.12.2009 and that the said proceedings are not under challenge.

9. The petitioner filed WP.No.8283 of 2010 which was disposed on 29.07.2011 with an observation that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the 1^st respondent was to be disposed off in accordance with rules. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent/corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the