IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7225 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 14.05.2009 Hukam Chand .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The instant case is an example of gross misuse of the judicial process. The petitioner was appointed as S.S. Teacher in Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent School') on 1.1.1986. Since his work was not satisfactory, the probation period was extended for two years. In spite of the extension of probation period, he did not make any improvement in his work and conduct. Therefore, his services were terminated on 11.3.1988. He challenged the order of termination of his services by filing a civil suit. During the pendency of the suit, he made an application to the respondent School pleading therein his financial condition and expressed his desire to join the services again. The matter was CWP No. 7225 of 2009 -2- compromised. The petitioner accepted a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the claim regarding his previous service and got his suit dismissed as withdrawn. He was allowed to join the respondent School on 20.8.1993. Subsequently, he resigned from the services of the respondent School on 16.4.1994. At the time of accepting his resignation, the petitioner made endorsement stating that he had already withdrawn all the cases against the respondent School and no amount is due towards the respondent School. After resigning from the respondent School, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, claiming deficiency in service on the part of the management of the respondent School with regard to depositing the amount of Provident Fund of the share of the management for the period from March, 1986 to March, 1994. The said complaint was dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, on 23.10.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application, but the same was also dismissed on 10.11.2006. After dismissal of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner again filed a civil suit claiming salary from 11.3.1988 to 20.8.1993 and the amount of Provident Funds from March, 1986 to February, 1988 and from March, 1988 to July, 1993. The said suit was hotly contested by the respondent School and ultimately, the same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, vide judgment and CWP No. 7225 of 2009 -3- decree dated 29.4.2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the same was also dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Sonepat on 19.10.2006. After dismissal of the civil suit, the petitioner filed CWP No.19556 of 2008 in this Court. It appears that in the said petition, the petitioner did not disclose the aforesaid litigation and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within two months. On the basis of the said direction, management of the respondent School vide order 29.12.2008 has decided the representation, while observing that in the civil litigation, the matter has finally been decided and in view of the civil court judgment, the petitioner has no claim whatsoever left against the management of the respondent School. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not controverted the fact that the judgment and decree, passed by the Civil Court, whereby suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, has become final. However, it has been submitted that claim in the suit was entirely different than the claim in this petition, which only pertains to the retiral benefits, including the Provident Fund. This submission cannot be accepted. Concededly, the civil suit was filed by the petitioner claiming salary from 11.3.1988 to 20.8.1993 and Provident Funds from March, 1986 to February, 1988 as well as from March, 1988 to July, 1993. A finding has been recorded by the Civil Court that the petitioner has settled all the claims CWP No. 7225 of 2009 -4- with the respondent School by giving in writing and by accepting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and subsequently, at the time of acceptance of his resignation, he had given in writing that all the disputes have been settled and nothing is due against the respondent School. In spite of that undertaking and the compromise arrived at, the petitioner has un-necessarily filed case against the respondent School. In my opinion, this petition is nothing, but a severe abuse of process of law. Once the matter has been finally decided by the Civil Court, nothing remains to be decided. In view of these facts, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. May 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE