Naib Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Letters Patent Appeal No. 97 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2023 Naib Singh .....Appellant versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Rupam K.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. ****

       CM No. 304-2023 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 92 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. Main appeal This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 17928 of 2022 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner seeking setting-aside of the order dated 27.10.1995, by which he was discharged from duties of Special Police Officer (SPO), has been dismissed on the ground that the issue raised by the petitioner stands concluded by the judgments and decrees of the competent Courts and therefore, the same cannot be raised in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the persons who are similarly placed with the petitioner, have been granted benefits by the respondents and therefore, he has been subjected to injustice and discrimination. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner, who was engaged as SPO on daily wage basis, was discharged from service against which he had filed a civil suit before the competent Court which was RAVINDER KUMAR 2023.02.03 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

 

   [2] dismissed on 23.10.1997 on the ground that the petitioner being a daily wager has no right to claim any relief. It is also undisputed that against the said judgment of the Civil Court, the appellant has filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.11.1999. The petitioner has also not denied the fact that subsequent to the coming into force of the policy granting benefit to the persons like the petitioner, the petitioner had again approached the Civil Court by filing a civil suit which was also dismissed as barred by resjudicata on 28.09.2013 and against which he had again filed an appeal which too was dismissed on 19.01.2017.

Upon being pointedly asked as to how after the suit filed by the appellant, claiming identical relief, was dismissed and the decrees passed by the trial Court having been affirmed in appeal and attained finality, the appellant could still re-agitate the matter before the Writ Court, learned counsel for the appellant fails to render any explanation least plausible. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition on the ground of resjudicata and non maintainability. The appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 02.02.2023 ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER KUMAR 2023.02.03 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.