Regular Second Appeal No. 3624 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3624 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION: April 19, 2010 Bakhtawar Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. As per the record, the appellant was working as Patwari and was dismissed on 29.11.1971. The order of dismissal was given a retrospective effect w.e.f.19.1.1963. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 2758 of 1972. A Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 2.10.1981 allowed the writ petition to the limited extent and held that the order of dismissal with retrospective effect was legally unsustainable. The relevant observation of this Court in the above noted writ petition reads as under:- “Thus keeping in view this authoritative pronouncement, it has to be held that the impugned order so far as it orders the dismissal of the petitioner with effect from December Regular Second Appeal No. 3624 of 1986 2 20, 1963 is bad and is unsustainable. Again following the dictum of their Lordships, I hold that the impugned order has to be held to be a good order prospectively and so far as it relates to the dismissal of the petitioner prior to the passing of the same i.e. November 29, 1971 the same is set aside. Thus as a result of the above discussion, this petition succeeds to the limited extent indicated above and is dismissed in all other respects but with no order as to costs.” Having succeeded in his challenge to this limited extent as aforementioned, the appellant filed a suit seeking declaration that he would be entitled to all emoluments, wages etc. w.e.f. 2.10.1963 till 29.11.1971 alongwith all consequential benefits. The prayer accordingly was made for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to pay the wages for the aforesaid period on the basis of judgment dated 02.01.1981 (Ex.P1 before the courts). The said suit was contested and on the basis of written statement, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?OPD. 4. Whether the proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint? OPD. Regular Second Appeal No. 3624 of 1986 3 5. Relief. The trial Court as well as Appellate Court declined the relief of wages on the ground that the similar relief was declined by the Hon'ble Court in the judgment (Ex.P1), part of which has been reproduced above. The counsel for the appellant, however, would say that this amounts to misreading of judgment passed by this Court. As per the counsel, there was no direction issued by this Court, while allowing the writ petition to not to grant the pay and allowances for the period from 2.1.1963 to the date of his dismissal i.e. 29.11.1971. As per the counsel, once the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court, the appellant would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he is to be deemed to be in service. In the writ petition filed, the appellant had also sought the same relief for payment of arrears of pay and allowances upon setting aside the order of his dismissal. While allowing the writ petition, it was specifically held by this Court that the petition would succeed to the limited extent as indicated above and would stand dismissed in all other respects but with no order as to costs. This is so held in the part of the order reproduced above. In this background, the relief as claimed by the appellant would be barred by principle of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Even if this relief had not been claimed, it would be doubtful if the appellant could file the civil suit claiming the same relief. Once the appellant had filed the writ petition to impugn or to challenge the order of dismissal, he was required to claim all the reliefs available under law and could not have asked for part of relief by filing a civil suit. In any case, that Regular Second Appeal No. 3624 of 1986 4 situation does not arise in this case as the payment of arrears of pay and allowances indeed was made in the writ petition and which was specifically declined. In this view of the matter, the substantial questions of law which are formulated by the counsel and handed over in the Court today, in my view would not arise. The judgment of this Court in the writ petition has been construed and interpreted correctly and there is no misreading of judgment, which would call for any interference in the impugned order. It may need a notice that LPA and SLP filed against the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court, were also dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. April 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE