High Court at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate employment. The court held the petition untenable as it sought identical relief previously dismissed in Writ Petition No.5322/2013, barring it under res judicata principles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2368/2014
Smt. Yashodhara wd/o Nitin Nagdeve Vs. Chief Engineer, Vidyut Bhavan, M.S.E.D.C.L. Nagpur and others.
Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.
Shri S. S. Shirsat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S. V. Purohit, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3
Shri A.P. Chaware, Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5.
C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.M. BADAR , JJ.
DATED : APRIL 06, 2015.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to
the respondent nos.1 to 3 to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on any Class-III or Class-IV post. The petitioner has challenged the refusal on the part of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
Shri S.V. Purohit, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos.1 to 3, raises a preliminary objection to the tenability of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.5322/2013 seeking the same relief
2
against the respondent nos.1 to 3. It is stated that the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 6.3.2014 and the instant petition is barred by the principles akin to the principles of res judicata.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we up-hold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in regard to the tenability of the petition. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.5322/2013 seeking almost identical relief and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the order dated 6th March, 2014. The petitioner is, therefore, precluded from filing the instant petition.
Since the second Writ Petition is not maintainable after the dismissal of the previous one in view of the settled principles of law, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Ambulkar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second writ petition seeking identical relief is maintainable after dismissal of the first proceeding under principles of res judicata.
Smt. Yashodhara
Chief Engineer, Vidyut Bhavan, M.S.E.D.C.L. Nagpur
Vasanti A. Naik
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
