Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) THE petitioner's grievance in the present writ application is in relation to Claim of salary on the promoted post under the State Education Service Class 11 w.e.f. 15.11.2000 upon grant of such promotion by the notification dated 1.7.2009 issued by the respondents just before his retirement on 31.7.2009. Consequential revision in post retirement benefits have also been claimed in the prayer portion at 1(b), (c), (d) etc. The ground upon which the said claim is made by the petitioner is that after having come into the cadre of Subordinate Education Service, Primary Branch on 12.8.1988, on promotion, he was actually posted on different post under Bihar Education Service Class II since 30.6.1998 onwards till his retirement. Therefore the respondents were not justified in denying him the claim of salary for the promoted post atleast from 15.11.2000 i.e. the date of creation of successor State of Jharkhand under the provision of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code since he had actually worked on the said post all along. Reference has been given of the different post held by him i.e. Area Education Officer, Angarha from 30.6.1998, post of D.S.E., Lohardaga from 18.6.2005, D.S.E., Deoghar w.e.f. 29.6.2005, Sub Divisional Education Officer, Ranchi w.e.f. 30.12.2006 till he retired on 31.7.2009.
(3.) HOWEVER , one fact which is staring at the case of the petitioner and does not stand refuted is that after his retirement petitioner himself preferred a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 1593 of 2010 for payment of post retirement benefits and pursuant to the judgment passed on 28.6.2010 the respondents have passed a reasoned order on 16.12.2010 bearing memo No. 5181 which is at Annexure -B to the counter affidavit of the respondent - State filed on 8.3.2011 and has never been challenged. The aforesaid fact was suppressed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Apart from that after his retirement the instant plea raised by him in the present writ application for grant of salary for the promoted post and consequential revision of pensionary benefits accruing thereupon were also available to him to agitate in the writ petition filed by him in 2010 itself i.e. W.P.S. 1593 of 2010. Petitioner may have consciously or inadvertently not raised the plea in the said writ petition. However, in either of the case, the present writ petition is barred by the Principle of Constructive Res -judicata which has been explained in several judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also in the Privy Council and the Courts of England. The whole object and purpose behind the said principle is that the litigant should not be encouraged to split one cause of action and re -agitate it one after another, as it is not only in the interest of the republic that a litigation should attain finality but also in the interest of the individual, who should also not be vexed again and again for the same cause of action available to the concerned party at the first occasion itself.;