- (1.) Heard Shri Sobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant- State, Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. The appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.04.2016 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has practically reviewed and recorded a finding contrary to as recorded in the final judgment between the same parties dated 19.11.2015. The submission, therefore, is that the learned Single Judge sitting as a co-ordinate bench could not have entertained the writ petition giving rise to this appeal and the cause of action shown in the writ petition was barred by the principles of estoppel and res judicata.
(2.) Shri Adnan, however, submits that the respondent-petitioner was entitled to the payment of the entire salary and therefore, the learned Single Judge has simply clarified the said position and has nowhere tinkered with the final judgment dated 19.11.2015. The contention, therefore, is that the principles of res-judicata are neither attracted, inasmuch as, the issue with regard to the arrears of salary for the period the respondent-petitioner had been not allowed to work, was not the subject matter of the decision in the earlier round of litigation.
(3.) We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that the dispute related to the benefit of the academic session being available to those teachers who are retiring in mid-session. Earlier the end of academic session was 30th June of each year, but on account of the alteration in the rules, the said date of the academic session stood converted to 31st March of the year following the age of retirement of a teacher.;