THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 23932 OF 2003 Date:13 .02.2008 Between: V.Shankarlal, s/o. late Punnaiah. …Petitioner and The Accountant General, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad & 3 others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 23932 of 2003 ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU) This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to treat the qualified service of the petitioner from 01.02.1970 to 30.06.1996 for all purposes of pay fixation, pension, gratuity and commutation with last pay of Rs.14,940/- as applicable for 1996 U.G.C. salaried class and payment of final pension, gratuity and commutation in the higher ceiling limits. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner was originally appointed as Physical Instructor in the fourth respondent college on 11.09.1969 and the said post was admitted to grant-in-aid on 01.02.1970. He retired on superannuation on 30.06.1996. Therefore, he put in a service of 26 years and 5 months. The petitioner was the senior most and the lone Physical Director in the third respondent college, especially from 1994 to 1996. The third respondent fixed his last pay at Rs.12,000/- in the time scale of selection grade of U.G.C. i.e. Rs.12,000-18,350 on 15.04.2002, instead of Rs.14,940/-. Therefore, he should have been admitted to 50% pension, gratuity and commutation. A Division Bench of this Court, in its Order dated 05.12.1996 in Writ Appeal No.1413 of 1996, declared the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.02.1970 to 30.06.1996 as ‘aided service’ and he put in total qualifying service of 39 years 3 months 9 days for terminal benefits. He had uninterrupted service, without any break, from 01.02.1970 till his retirement and so he should be given 8/16 years time scale of senior scale/selection grade with effect from 01.01.1986. The respondents paid arrears for 356 Physical Directors, but 41 members were denied the payment of arrears. None of the U.G.C. orders says that the service rendered in unaided post is to be excluded while computing 8/16 years of service in Career Advancement Scheme (for short ‘C.A.S.’). Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner amended his prayer that Act 26 of 2006 is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as it takes away the vested statutory right. 4. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter denying all the allegations and stating that though the petitioner worked for 39 years, it was not a qualified service according to the C.A.S. In Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001, a Division Bench of this Court in its Order dated 06.06.2001, clearly held that the petitioner herein is not entitled to count pre-83 service for the purpose of C.A.S. as the service rendered in the said cadre in aided post shall alone be counted. As the cadre of Physical Director was created only with effect from 16.11.1984, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.12,000/- with effect from 01.01.1996 in A.P. Revised U.G.C. Scales. As the petitioner did not put up 16 years’ of service by 01.01.1996 in the said cadre, his pay was not fixed at Rs.14,940/- . No Special Leave petition was filed against the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and so it has become final. Now, the petitioner cannot reiterate that the service rendered by him from 01.02.1970 has to be treated as qualified service for fixation of his pay. As per G.O.Ms. No.855, dated 28.6.1983, the Assistant Physical Director post in which the petitioner was working as on that date, was upgraded to that of Physical Director with effect from 16.11.1984. So, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director only with effect from 16.11.1984. Further, the Division Bench of this Court has clearly given a finding that the petitioner’s contention that his service from 01.02.1970 as Physical Instructor has to be treated as service rendered by him in the capacity of Physical Director, is not tenable, and that the petitioner’s service as Physical Director commences only with effect from 16.11.1984 for the purpose of C.A.S. as well as other benefits. The endorsement made in the Service Register with regard to his initial appointment cannot be taken into consideration for C.A.S. or for giving selection post of 16 years. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for refixation of his pay. As the petitioner has not put up 30 years’ of qualified service in grant-in-aid post, he is not eligible for 50% of pension. The gratuity of the petitioner was revised as per his eligibility. As he retired on 30.06.1996, he is not eligible for enhanced gratuity. Insofar as the services of employees of private aided colleges, the services rendered by the employees in grant-in-aid post alone will be considered as qualified service for fixation of pension, as per G.O. Ms. No.2, Education, dated 05.01.1994. The relief sought for by the petitioner is contrary to the Government Orders. As per G.O. Ms. No.2, dated 05.01.1994, unaided service cannot be counted for C.A.S. or pension. In any view of the matter, all the contentions herein were raised, and the same were decided by this Court, in its order dated 06.06.2001 in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001, and therefore the present Writ Petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. The respondents filed additional counter affidavit, for which reply is filed by the petitioner stating that the orders in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001 are adamant and miscarriage of justice as they run counter to his career progress as envisaged by the C.P.C. 6. The petitioner, appearing party-in-person, has given written arguments. It is stated that this Court by its order dated 12.03.1996 in Writ Petition No.16907 of 1995, as affirmed in Writ Appeal No.1413 of 1996, held that the petitioner is entitled to count his service as aided from his initial admission of the post to aid i.e. from 01.02.1970. Further, he reiterated the same aspects as stated in the petition. 7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondents that the issue involved in this Writ Petition has already been decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001; that in view of the fact that the third respondent sanctioned the post of Physical Director to the fourth respondent college with effect from 16.11.1984, the petitioner is entitled notionally from that date and the service rendered by him prior to that date cannot be taken as qualified service in the cadre. Hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merit. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the points that fall for our consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 01.02.1970 to 30.06.1996 can be treated as qualified service for pay fixation, pension, gratuity and commutation, and whether the issue involved in this case is, directly and substantially, the same which has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 06.06.2001 in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001 ? 9. The factual matrix is not seriously in dispute. The petitioner seems to have been appointed on 11.9.1969 as Physical Instructor in fourth respondent college. The said post was admitted into grant-in-aid with effect from 01.02.1970. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 30.06.1996. Pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.12,000/- with effect from 01.01.1996 in the A.P. Revised U.G.C. Scales in time scale of Rs.12,000-18,350. The contention of the petitioner is that his pay should have been fixed at Rs.14,940/- in the aforesaid time scale by taking his qualified service from 01.02.1970. The contention of the respondents is that since the post of Physical Director was created from 16.11.1984 and the petitioner was appointed in that post, he has not put up 16 years’ of qualified service by 01.01.1996, and so he is not entitled for C.A.S. 10. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16907 of 1995. The prayer sought for in the said Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to treat his entire service of 26 years for the purpose of pension and gratuity, and hold the action of the respondents as discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. This Court, by its Order dated 12.03.1996, held that the petitioner is entitled to count his service from 01.02.1970 as aided service only for the purpose of terminal benefits, and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition. The said order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1413 of 1996. 11. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.21507 of 1999, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 17.01.2001, quashed the proceedings of the second respondent therein, in Rc. No.758/PF-3/99, dated 12.10.1999, and gave a direction to refix the pay of the petitioner in U.G.C. Scales of 1976 and 1986 as adopted by the first respondent therein in G.O. Ms. No.520, Education, dated 15.12.1988 and as clarified in G.O. Ms. NO.169, dated 7.7.1990. Challenging the same, Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001 was filed. 12. The petitioner was appointed on 11.9.1969 as Physical Instructor in the fourth respondent college. Though the post was admitted to grant-in-aid on 01.02.1970, it became unaided post on 30.11.1970. Again, the said post was admitted as a grant-in-aid post from 01.06.1983. The contention of the petitioner is that because of no fault of him, the post in which he was working became unaided and therefore his service from 01.02.1970 shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of terminal benefits. No doubt, in the first Writ Petition No.16907 of 1995, a learned single Judge of this Court directed to treat the petitioner’s service of 26 years only for the purpose of terminal benefits such as pension and gratuity. The second Writ Petition No. 21507 of 1999 was filed to count the service of the petitioner from 01.02.1970 and put him in U.G.C. scales, 1996 with effect from 01.01.1996. In the said Writ Petition, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to claim benefit of U.G.C. scales of 1976 and 1986. But, by virtue of the order, dated 06.06.2001, of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001, which is preferred against the order in the second Writ Petition, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to count pre-1983 service for the purpose of C.A.S. as the service rendered in the cadre in aided post shall alone be counted. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Division Bench that the petitioner’s unaided service from 01.02.1970 till 01.06.1983 cannot be taken into account for Career Advancement Scheme. The said Order of the Division Bench has become final as no Special Leave Petition was filed against the same. Admittedly, the post of Physical Director in the fourth respondent was created only with effect from 15.11.1984. Therefore, the petitioner cannot reagitate the same to refix his pay at Rs.14,940/- in the time scale of Rs.12,000-18,300/- in A.P. Revised U.G.C. Scales, in view of the fact that he has not put up 16 years’ of qualified service by 01.01.1996. 13. The petitioner relied on an unreported decision of Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No.11906 of 1993, dated 13.12.1996, wherein it is held as follows: “We are of the clear opinion that the petitioners claim for career advancement should be computed from the dates when their respective appointments were approved by the competent authority.” The said judgment was confirmed by the Apex Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed against the said Order. 14. Though, in the above judgment, it is stated that grant- in-aid cannot be linked with C.A.S. but it is available independently of the fact whether grant-in-aid sanctioned or not, but in view of the fact that the issue of the petitioner herein had already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court holding that he is not entitled for C.A.S. for the service rendered from 01.02.1970 in unaided post, we cannot take a different view than the one taken by the Division Bench of this Court earlier. If really the petitioner is aggrieved by the said judgment, he should have filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the same. Once this Court decided the issue to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to count pre- 1983 service for the purpose of C.A.S., now the said issue cannot be reopened. 15. Section 11 C.P.C. deals with Res judicata, which reads that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. 16. The doctrine of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all the litigations must, sooner than later, come to an end. The Principle is also founded on equity, justice and good conscience which require that the party who has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by a multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue. A litigation, which has no end or finality, defeats its very object. The object is decision of disputes or an end to each litigation. But, if there is no finality to it, the dispute cannot be said to be really resolved at all. 17. The spirit of res judicata is expressed in well known common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa which means ‘no man should be vexed twice for the same cause’. 18. There is no dispute that parties are the same in Writ Appeal No.521 of 2001 and in the present Writ Petition. The issue involved in the said appeal and in the present Writ Petition is also one and the same i.e. whether the petitioner’s service prior to 16.11.1984 can be taken as qualified service for C.A.S. The said issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in an earlier round of litigation between the same parties holding that the petitioner is not entitled to count pre-1983 service for C.A.S. Admittedly, no Special Leave Petition is preferred against the order of the Division Bench. It is not in dispute that the principle of res judicata is equally applicable to the Writ Petitions. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is wholly devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA --------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 13.02.2008 DRK