<31 // {W \(® IN THE HIGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. NO. 22’ 2004 PETITIONER : Iaiprakash Pathak, S/ 0‘ Late Vidyadhar, Pathak, Aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Bauripara, Near Temple, BO. Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ’ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1] State of Chhath’sgarh, Through: Principle Secretary, (Water Resources Department, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: Principle Secretary (Water Resources Department, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M‘P‘) 3] Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachhar, (Water Resources Department), Irrigation Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4] Superintending Engineer, Shyam Barnai Project, (Water Resources Department) Irrigation Department, P.O. Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 5] Executive Engineer, Barnai Canal Division (Water Resources Department), Irrigation Department, P.O. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) TIION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ONSTITUTION OF‘INDIA ' WRIT PET C HIGH GOURT OF CHHAWISGARii AT BILASPUR M Writ Petition No. 4225 (£2004 Pcu'u‘oner Jaiprakash Pathak Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others Versus A Post for order onjp Navenber, 2906. Sd/~ Satish K. Agnihon'iff Judge ‘i AFR { y N HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Peu'tion No. 4225 of 2004 Petitioner Jaiprakash Pathak Versus Respondent Stake of Chhattisgarh & othexs SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Batish K. Ayihotri, J Shri Manoj Pamnjpe, Advocate for the petiu'oner. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 3,\4 and 5. S f None for the mspondent No.2. 0 R D E R (.20 *I‘qovember, 2006) The following onier of the Court is passed by Justice Satish K. Agihotti. 1. The present peh'tion med under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a ditection to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner had nled a petition in the same nature being W.P.No. 3485/ 2003, seeldng for the same relief i.e. direction to the respondents to consider and grant compassionate appointment on the death of the kther of the petitioner late Vidyad har Pathak. 2. The case oi: the petitioner is that his father late Vidyadhar Pathak was working with'iespondents and was posted on the post of supervisor since 22.11.1983 as daily wages employee. He was posted at village Libra in district Sarguja. During the servm‘e he died on 8.11.2002 leaving behind all dependent family members who have no source of income. The petitioner is an educated unemployed youth seeking employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has passed MA. if: in Socioloy and on the death of his father his mother made an application for compassionate appointment to Chief Eng'neer, ‘ Bilaspur. On the applicaiions of the petitioner the respondent No.3 /@ Chief Engineer, Bilaspur dimetéd the respondent No.4 Supexintending Engineer for neccssary action and also directed to fomam the petitioner‘s application afier completion of all the formalities. The Respondent No.4 in response to the dimction of the mspondent No.3 foxwanied the application of the petitioner $r compassbnate appointment to respondent No.5, but the mspozudent No.5 had not taken any action. . This Court after having considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties granted liberty to the petin'oner to make a detailed representation to. the respondent No.2, tmrein, for appoimment on compassionate basis, while disposing of W. P. Nor 3485/ 2003 on 23. 1.2004 (Amexure P/ 6). . The petitioner submitted a representation which was considered by the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 by order dated 4.5.2004 dismissed the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was daily wages employee and as per clause 3 (1) of the Executive Circular dated 10.6.2003, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of compassionate appointment being dependent of the deceased employee. . The petitioner has tiled this petition again seeking for the same relief Without challenging the correctness and validity of the order dated ‘ 452004 (Annexme P/7) passed by the respondent No.3 Chief Engineer, pursuant to the order dated 23. 1.2004 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 3485/2003. " . . By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged some other grounds nameiy, the petitioner was regular employee not a daily wages employee relymg on a letter dated 21 8.1997 (Annexure P/ 2) of the Deputy Oollector, Surguja, addressed to the Chief Engineer, Public .‘Works Department, wherein it was stated that the petitioner may be oKQD considered for mgularjzation in view of the govemmcnt memo dated 20th June, 1996. It is admitted position that no order to the m gmmjng mgularization to the deceased employee was ever passed. 7. Be that as it may, once the dispute has been raised and adjudicated by this Court, the eecond petition is not maintainable on the same cause of action seeking for the same relief. This adjudication is baned by the principles of ms-judicata. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kant Vs. Kalyan (dead) by Lrs. { (2000) 8 SCC 99} in pamgaphs 14 and 17 held as under:- “14. The doctrine of r res judioata has received a statutory samm'on in the Code as a matter ofprudenoe and to give me weigfvtage to afinding or a decision so as to reach annah’ty in the matter of a ¢£spute between the same parties or litigating under ‘ the same parties. The doctrine thus is to achieve finalay of dispute between the parties being a pn'napte ofpmdenoe so asto ? give eo‘icacy to ajinding of the court rather than permit the parties ‘ to go to trial more or less on the same issues over again and thus introdudng a possibility of amy‘uct of skews. Judicial verdia has its special sandity and cannot be the subjea-matter of ¢Tswssion at any name time involving identical or similar issues. The fads in issue is one where more than one aitemp! has been made ta establish a fad and in every attempt that partioularfaot stands negated 17. Me doctrine of res judioata or constructive res jum‘oata predominantly is a pfina'ple of equity, good oonsa'enoe and justice. It would neither be equitable nor fair nor in accordance with the principles ofjustice that the issue concluded earlier ought to be permitted to be raised later in a different pmmeding. n 9. As a result, for the masons stated above and in view of the dictum laid down by the Supxeme Court‘this petition is dismissed. No order as to