The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata prevent a party from reviving a cause of action by filing a fresh application to challenge an order that was already considered and not challenged during the pendency of a previous proceeding.

Reserved on 18.08.2026

ORDER

Heard Shri Dharmendra Tiwari , learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“A. To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.10.2018, 23.10.2018 and 11.12.2024 (Annexure No. 1 of the O.A.) passed by the answering respondent.

B. To direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant in accordance to merit and policy on the subject matter applicable at the time of death of deceased father of the applicant.

C. To issue any order, direction, further Orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

D. Award the cost of Original Application.”

The applicant’s father, namely Shri Mahendra Bhatnagar, while serving in the Postal Department, died in a road accident in the intervening night of 28/29.01.2012, leaving behind the applicant, one married daughter, namely Deep Shikha, and another unmarried daughter, namely Rimzhim Bhatnagar; the applicant claims that after the death of his parents, the responsibility of maintaining and arranging the education and marriage of his unmarried younger sister devolved upon him. The applicant had already registered his name with the Employment Exchange on 15.01.2009 vide Registration No. C-165/09 and, after the death of his father, submitted applications dated 21.02.2012 and 26.03.2012 before respondent No.4 seeking compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 issued letter dated 19.04.2012 requiring the applicant to furnish various documents, which he duly submitted, including the death certificates of his parents, Lekhpal report regarding the family’s house and agricultural property, income and solvency certificates, educational certificates and affidavits/no-objection declarations of his sisters. Thereafter, respondent No.4, vide letter dated 19.03.2013, again sought certain documents for forwarding the applicant’s case to the Regional Office, which were supplied by the applicant on 29.05.2013. However, respondent No.4, vide letter dated 19.07.2013, informed the applicant that his sisters had withdrawn their earlier no-objection declarations and that his younger sister, namely Rimzhim, had herself sought compassionate appointment, advising the applicant to approach the authorities after settling the family dispute. The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 20.06.2013 and 03.07.2013 before the competent authorities, asserting that he was unemployed, possessed no valuable immovable property and was bearing the liabilities left by his deceased parents. Meanwhile, the Assistant Director/Postmaster General, Bareilly Region, vide order dated 24.07.2013, rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that a married son was not eligible for compassionate appointment, which view was reiterated by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 08.08.2013 on the basis of the FAQ dated 30.05.2013. The applicant continued to pursue his claim through representations and, vide letter dated 01.01.2014, specifically contended that his application had been pending since 2012 and that the subsequent FAQ dated 30.05.2013 could not retrospectively govern his pending claim. The applicant also sought information under the Right to Information Act in March 2014 regarding his claim and the relevant departmental records. Respondent No.4, vide letter dated 03.04.2014, again referred to the restriction applicable to a married son under the FAQ dated 30.05.2013, while acknowledging that the applicant’s claim had been pending since 21.02.2012. The applicant subsequently furnished further documents and affidavits dated 08.06.2015 from both his sisters supporting his claim for compassionate appointment. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 826 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2024; thereafter, the a