HARI CHAND AND ORS. versus FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 26-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARi CHAND AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
F ARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Pension-Appellants were employees of Municipal 
Corporation-Under the 1971 Act, they were entitled to Contributory Provident 
Fund which was paid-Appellants retired on various dates between 1976 a~d 
1986, prior to introduction of the new pension scheme in 1992-Action of C 
respondent-adminsitration in denying appellants the benefit of pension under 
the new pension scheme-Validity of-Held, valid-The new pension schem'e 
operated only prospectively-Besides, Note I to Rule 3.16 expressly excluded 
employees of Municipalities from application of new pension scheme-No 
violation of Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution-Punjab Civil Service Rulei__.. D 
Rule 3.16, Note 1-Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 
1971. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Earlier suit instituted by certain 
employees claiming pensionary benefits was decreed which attained finality-, 
In subsequent writ proceedings, appellant claimed similar relief against the · E 
same employer-Doctrine of 'res judicata '-Applicability of-Held: Apart from 
the fact that the doctrine of res judicata does not stricto sensu apply to writ 
proceedings, it has no application to the facts of the case-Appellants were 
not 'parties' to the earlier suit, nor are they claiming through plaintiffs of that 
suit-That suit was also not filed as a 'representative' suit-Hence, decree in F 
that suit cannot operate as res judicata--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Section II. 
Appellants were appointed by the Faridabad Development Board 
which was converted into Faridabad Notified Area Committee, later on 
renamed as Faridabad Complex Administration and finally as Faridabad G 
Municipal Corporation. They retired from service on various dates 
between 1976 and 1986 and were entitled to Contributory Provident Fund 
which was paid to them under the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and 
Development) Act, 1971. However, the appellants filed writ petition before 
903 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A High Court for a declaration that they were entitled to pensionary benefits 
as admissible to employees of Haryana Govt. and for a writ of mandamus 
directing extension of such benefits to them. Single Judge of the High Court 
observed that since similar benefit was allowed to similarly situated 
persons in an earlier civil suit, which decree attained finality, the 
Appellants too were entitled to equal treatment and similar benefits. 
B Accordingly it allowed the writ petition. The ~ivision Bench, however, held 
that the pension scheme was introduced only in 1992 and the appellants 
having superannuated prior to 1992 were not entitled to pensionary 
benefits under the scheme. The Division Bench further observed that the 
point was covered by the ratio of an earlier decision given by it and 
C accordingly set aside the order of the Single Judge. Hence, the present 
appeals. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeals 
is as to whether the decree passed in the earlier civil suit operated as res 
judicata and whether the appellants were entitled to pension as claimed 
D by them. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Division Bench was wholly right in allowing the 
. appeals and setting aside the directions of the Single Judge. The action of 
E the respondent-Corporation, hence, cannot be described as arbitrary, 
discriminatory or unreas~mable, violative of Article 14 or 19 of the 
Constitution. (915-A; 916-C) 
State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) and Ors., 
(1997) 4 SCC 569; V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, 
F Bombay and Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30 and Union of India and Anr. v. Deoki 
Nandan Aggarwal, [1992) Supp 1 SCC 323, relied on. 
Dhan Raj and Ors. v. State of J & Kand Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 30 and 
D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) l SCC 305, distinguished. 
G 
2. So far as res judicata is concerned, admittedly, no suit had been 
filed by the appellants in any court. A suit was instituted by certain 
employees which was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree. was 
confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. Apart 
from the fact that the doctrine of res judicata as envisaged by Section 11 
H CPC does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of 
. 
, 
HARi CHAND v. FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.