20.01.2026 Item No.14 Ct. No.1 PG WP.CT. 4 of 2026 Dr. Suresh Chandra Mazumder Versus Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Rabin Kr. Gorai Ms. Ananya Neogi …..for the Petitioner Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty Mr. Rahul Sarkar Ms. Sayani Gupta Mr. Atindra Rai….for the respondent no. 1 P E R , SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

1. Parties are represented through their respective learned counsel.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner has questioned the legality, validity and propriety of order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (for short ‘tribunal’) dated

12.08.2024 passed in O.A. No. 1107 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was recruited in the pay scale of Rs. 150-240 as a Trigonometrical Computer Trainee with entry level with Mathematics and Trigonometry as one of the subjects. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2008. Thereafter, petitioner preferred series of representations for claiming that at the time of his initial appointment in 1972, his pay scale should have been Rs. 425-700 in place of Rs. 150-240. Although certain Grievance Redressal Committees etc. considered the claim of the petitioner, the department never accepted the claim of Rs. 425-700 as pay scale on the date of initial appointment.

5. The petitioner then filed O.A. No. 1107 of 2024 before the tribunal. The tribunal rejected it by taking into account that the petitioner earlier preferred O.A. No. 204 of 2019 with certain prayers. In that case, the said O.A. was dismissed with observation that petitioner filed another O.A. 373 of 2002 before the tribunal. The tribunal opined that in view of principles flowing from Order II Rule 2 of CPC, the petition cannot be entertained and barred by principles of constructive res judicata. This rejection order is the subject-matter of challenge before us.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner, after his retirement was consistently raising his grievance for fixing of correct pay scale of Rs. 425-700 from the year 1972. This consistent representation and grievance falls within the ambit of continuous cause of action and therefore, the delay does not come in his way.

7. The relief of grant of pay scale of Rs. 425-700 was not subject matter of prayer in both the OAs, viz., O.A. 373 of 2002 and O.A. 204 of 2019 and hence question of res judicata does not arise.

8. The petitioner after rejection of his representation, filed the OA before the tribunal promptly. This order of tribunal is bad in law.

9. Counsel for department supported the impugned order.

10. On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for petitioner did not dispute that present petitioner indeed filed O.A. 373 of 2002 and O.A. 204 of 2019. The O.A. 373 of 2002 was dismissed in respect of certain reliefs. This O.A. was filed when petitioner was in employment because he retired in the year 2008. The grievance regarding claim of pay scale of Rs. 425- 700 was available to the petitioner and known to him when he filed O.A. 373 of 2002. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not pray for grant of pay scale of Rs. 425-700 in O.A. 373 of 2002. Similarly, in O.A. 204 of 2019, the prayer clause does not reflect that he was asking for this prayer of grant of pay scale of Rs. 425- 700. The said petition was also not decided on merits.

11. The basic question is whether tribunal committed an error in invoking principles analogous to and flowing from Order II Rule 2 CPC. The basic principle flowing from Order II Rule 2 CPC is that if a grievance and relief is available to the petitioner and he did not pray for the said relief in the previous round of litigation, he cannot pray for the said relief in the second round of litigation. Any contrary view will lead to a situation, where there will be no end to the litigation.

12. The pivotal principle that if a petition is decided to be filed, any relief available and desired, must be added in one go in the first petition. There cannot be adjudication in easy