# Khalifa Ram Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 518
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15733 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khalifa-ram-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49161
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, Art.
226 - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, Rule 7
of Chapter XXII - Second Writ petition -
maintainability - principles of Order II
Rule 2 & constructive res judicata would
apply to writ jurisdiction - If a plea could
have
been
taken
by
a
party in
a
proceeding
between
him
and
his
opponent, he would not be permitted to
take that plea against the same party in a
subsequent proceeding which is based on
the same cause of action - Even if the
petitioner has withdrawn the earlier writ
petition or it is dismissed as infructuous,
without leave to file a fresh petition, a
second writ petition for the same cause of
action is not maintainable - Once the relief
is framed in a particular manner in one
1 All. Khalifa Ram Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
writ petition and such relief is not granted
at the time of final disposal of the writ
petition by the Court, it shall be presumed
that relief so claimed stands rejected - In
the present case, a previous petition was
filed praying for retiral benefits alongwith
admissible interest - In the said petition,
petitioner made a statement before the
Court that nothing further survives in the
petition as respondents have paid post
retiral benefits to him and, accordingly,
the
writ
petition
was
dismissed
as
infructuous - Second writ petition filed for
directing the respondents to pay 9%
interest on retiral dues - Held, no second
writ petition claiming interest on delayed
payment is maintainable. (Para 7, 8,9,10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dependent on her father after her marriage.
The law enjoins that it is duty of the
husband to maintain his wife and enables
her to claim alimony in case he refuses to
maintain her. Therefore, the dependency on
the father ceases the moment the daughter
is given in marriage and that is the
justification
for
excluding
married
daughters from the category of dependents.

14. The Court also considered
judgment rendered by the High Court of
Kerela
in
a
similar
case
in
V
Sunithakumari vs. K.S.E.B. and Others,
1992 SCC online KER145

15. The Division Bench thereafter
observed in the case of Madhavi Mishra
(Supra) that petitioner cannot claim for
compassionate appointment as a matter of
right specially when she has deliberately
omitted to mention eligibility of her mother
to get family pension, thus not leaving her in
penury and also not making her dependent on
the present applicant. There is the tradition
also that a married daughter is dependent on
her husband and not on her father.

16. This Court has gone through the
pleadings on record and finds that there is
no pleading regarding the mother of the
petitioner getting family pension and other
terminal benefits on the death of late Girish
Chandra. There is also no denial of such a
statement made by the respondents in their
counter affidavit in the rejoinder affidavit
filed by the petitioner. It has not come out
from the pleadings that the petitioner was
in anyway dependant on the income of her
father at the time he was alive. Only
because the husband of the petitioner is
allegedly unemployed and the mother of
the petitioner is living with the petitioner
and her husband and in-laws in petitioner's
matrimonial home, it cannot be said that
the
petitioner
has
any
right
for
compassionate appointment.

17. This Court finds no good ground
to show interference in the order impugned.
The writ petition stands dismissed.

18. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 518
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 15733 of 2022

Khalifa Ram Chauhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Awadhesh
Kumar Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Omkar Dutt Malviya

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, Art.
226 - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, Rule 7
of Chapter XXII - Second Writ petition -
maintainability - principles of Order II
Rule 2 & constructive res judicata would
apply to writ jurisdiction - If a plea could
have
been
taken
by
a
party in
a
proceeding
between
him
and
his
opponent, he would not be permitted to
take that plea against the same party in a
subsequent proceeding which is based on
the same cause of action - Even if the
petitioner has withdrawn the earlier writ
petition or it is dismissed as infructuous,
without leave to file a fresh petition, a
second writ petition for the same cause of
action is not maintainable - Once the relief
is framed in a particular manner in one
1 All. Khalifa Ram Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
519
writ petition and such relief is not granted
at the time of final disposal of the writ
petition by the Court, it shall be presumed
that relief so claimed stands rejected - In
the present case, a previous petition was
filed praying for retiral benefits alongwith
admissible interest - In the said petition,
petitioner made a statement before the
Court that nothing further survives in the
petition as respondents have paid post
retiral benefits to him and, accordingly,
the
writ
petition
was
dismissed
as
infructuous - Second writ petition filed for
directing the respondents to pay 9%
interest on retiral dues - Held, no second
writ petition claiming interest on delayed
payment is maintainable. (Para 7, 8,9,10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Devilal Modi Vs STO 1965 (1) SCR 686

2. Surya Deo Mishra Vs St. of U.P. 2007 (1) SLR
546 (All)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. This petition has been filed with the
following prayer:

"(a) To, issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to pay 9% interest to the
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- of retiral dues since
30.06.2017 till date to the petitioner, within
stipulated period."

2. The learned counsel for the
respondent has raised preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of the writ petition.
He states that the petitioner had earlier filed
Writ-A No.9556 of 2020 before this Court
praying
for
retiral
benefits
alongwith
admissible interest and with further direction
to the respondents to decide the representation
of the petitioner dated 17.08.2020.

3. This Court initially entertained the
said writ petition on 11.11.2020 directing
the respondents to obtain instructions with
regard to the payment of retiral dues of the
petitioner. This Court directed the matter to
be listed on 18.08.2021 and further directed
that post retiral benefits of the petitioner
may be paid to him, failing which, the
Secretary (Water Supply) U.P. at Lucknow
shall file his personal affidavit on or before
the date fixed or otherwise, the Court
would be forced to summon the Officer
concerned in person. When the matter was
taken up on 18.08.2021, the petitioner
made a statement before the Court that
nothing further survives in the petition as
respondents have affected compliance with
the
order
dated
12.07.2021
and,
accordingly,
the
writ
petition
was
dismissed as infructuous on the same day.

4. The copy of the order dated
18.08.2021 has been placed before this
Court.

5. The counsel for the respondent says
that once the petitioner had made a prayer
for grant of retiral benefits alongwith the
admissible interest in his earlier writ
petition, which writ petition was disposed
of having become infructuous, no second
writ petition claiming interest of delayed
payment is maintainable.

6. The counsel for the petitioner states
that interest admittedly has not been paid
by the respondents.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of
Devilal Modi vs. STO 1965 (1) SCR 686
was considering whether the principles of
Order II Rule 2 and constructive res
judicata would apply to writ jurisdiction
and it observed that though the Courts
dealing with the questions of infringement
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of fundamental rights must consistently
endeavour to sustain the said rights and
should strike down their unconstitutional
invasion, it would not be right to ignore the
principle of res judicata altogether in
dealing with writ petitions filed by citizens
alleging
the
contraventions
of
their
fundamental rights. If a plea could have
been taken by a party in a proceeding
between him and his opponent, he would
not be permitted to take that plea against
the same party in a subsequent proceeding
which is based on the same cause of action,
because the principle of constructive res
judicata is based on sound public policy of
finality of judgments.

8. The Supreme Court in its Full
Bench decision in Surya Deo Mishra vs.
State of UP 2007 (1) SLR 546 (All) has
held that the Rules of the Court prohibit
second writ petition for the same cause of
action. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 provides
that where an application has been rejected,
it shall not be competent for the applicant
to move a second application on the same
facts. Even if the petitioner has withdrawn
the earlier writ petition or it is dismissed as
infructuous, without leave to file a fresh
petition, a second writ petition for the same
cause of action is not maintainable.

9. Once the relief is framed in a
particular manner in one writ petition and
such relief is not granted at the time of final
disposal of the writ petition by the Court, it
shall be presumed that relief so claimed
stands rejected.

10. Thus, writ petition therefore,
stands dismissed.

11. Thus, the writ petition is rejected
as not maintainable.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 520
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Writ-A No.23396 of 2014

Narsingh Rawat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Msanjay Kumar Srivastava, Sri Siddharth
Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Civil
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Claim - Delay - mother of
the petitioner worked as Class IV employee
(Sweeper) in the Institution who died on
29.6.1999 in harness during service period
and at that time, age of the petitioner was 15
years four months and 16 days - Upon
attaining the age of majority the petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment -
Principal
forwarded
the
application
on
22.06.2002 to the D.I.O.S. for consideration
which remained pending - writ petition filed
in year 2014 - Held - there was no delay or
negligence on the part of the petitioner, but
the delay was on the part of the state -
respondents directed to consider the case of
the
petitioner
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground (Para 16)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs State of Orissa & ors.
(S.L.P. (Civil) No. 936 of 2022) dt 20.05.2022

2. St. of Mah. & anr. Vs Ms. Madhuri Maruti
Vidhate 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1001