HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: W.P. (S) No.2285 of 2010 Smt Ch. Laxmiy W/o late Kalidas, aged about 56 years, House Wife, Resident at Kailash Nagar, C/o Prasad Reddy Kiraiia Stores, DURG491 002 (CG) Versus 1. 2. 3. Union of ladia, Through fhe General Maaager, SEC Railwray, G,M. Office, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspiu- (CG) The Sr. Divisioiial Personnel OflEicer, SEC Railway, Ralpur Division, DRM Complex, Raipiir (CG) The Registrar, Central Adxsiimstrative Tribmial, Jabalpur Bench, Caravs Buildiag, JABALPUR (MF) Present- Shri B,P, Rao, counsel for fhe petitioner. Ms, Naushina Afrm Ali asfcsisted by Shri AbhisheJk Sinha, counsel for the respondents. Dh^ston Beach: Hoa^Me Shri Dlilreiidra Mlslira & Hon»ble8h»tR.N. Chaadrakar. JJ. ORALORDBR (2-12-2010) 1, The widow of UG Gangniaii iinder respondent No.2 ffled origiiial appUcation and prayed for direction to the respondents to repay tlie recovered amQunt fTom. DCRG and to pay the unpaid Death Compensation (Death Benefit) with iaterest at the rate of9%before the Central Administraitive Tribiinal at ^Jabalpur. The Tribunal has disinissed the above Origixial Application by the impugned onler under Section 19(3) ofthe Administrative Tribiinals Act, 1985 in ifirronewifh an observation tihiat the petitioner's earlier O.A. No<473/08 pi^cisely on the .-^IS^ S '^gl^'"^ S %.. "T .^J :<t^ ^^y saine issiie has been disposed of aiid his claini laid in preseiit O.A. is barred by the principle of res juidicatcL The veiy fact that she had given iip part of the reliefs prayed in earlier OA indicates tliat she has talcen a conscious decision not to press the relief which were prayed on earlier occasion and she cannot be permitted to file successive petitiona based on same cause ofaction and precisely for tlw same relief 2. Shri B.P, Rao, leanied counsel for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of fhe relief clause in. the subsequent original appMcation^ it would be evident that fhe petitioner has also claimed the iinpaid death coinpensation of Rs.5,000/- wifh interest which was not siibject iiiatter of the earUer petition, 3< Indispiitably, the caiise of action for claimiiig relief claimed by way of tliis petition was also available to Ihe petitioner when O.A, No.473/08 was preferred by the petitioner, hdwever, tlie petitioner conscioiisly did not claim these reliefe aud the instant petition has been filed ia fhe year 2009 i<e. 5 years ^ifter cause ofaction arose to fhe petitioiier, 4» In these circumstaQces, we do not Imd any illegality or mfirmily ia the impugned order of the Tribunal warraDtmg interference ixi exercise of jurisdictioii iinder Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, Barve 5, The petition is accordingly disxnissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra | Judge j Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge