1995 (9) TMI 383 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constructive Res Judicata
2. Validity of Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II
3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Special Leave Petition

Summary:

1. Constructive Res Judicata:
The primary issue was whether the plea of constructive res judicata was rightly raised against the appellant. The appellant had previously filed a writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement, which was dismissed. The State of Punjab argued that the subsequent suit filed by the appellant was barred by principles of res judicata. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled in favor of the State, holding that the earlier decision operated as res judicata. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the constitutionality of Rule 5.32 was not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier writ petition and thus could not be deemed to have been decided against the appellant.

2. Validity of Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II:
The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 5.32, which allowed for compulsory retirement after ten years of qualifying service. The Supreme Court referenced its earlier decisions in Moti Ram Deka's case and Gurdev Singh Sidhu's case, which held similar rules to be unconstitutional as they contravened Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court struck down Rule 5.32 as invalid and held the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant to be void and inoperative.

3. Condonation of Delay in Filing Special Leave Petition:
The Supreme Court considered the appellant's special leave petition filed against the earlier writ petition decision, despite the significant delay. The Court noted that the appellant had been pursuing an appropriate remedy in good faith and allowed the condonation of delay. This step was taken to ensure substantial justice, and the Court granted leave to appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed both the appeals, set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court, and held that the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant under Rule 5.32 was void and inoperative. The appellant was entitled to arrears and other reliefs as claimed in the plaint, in accordance with the judgment of the Trial Court. The appellant was also awarded costs in Civil Appeal No.632 of 1985.