Patna High Court

Chandra Mohan SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata under Explanation V of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Summary

The petitioner, a retired water resources employee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar to pay interest on his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and arrears, relying on earlier judgments ordering payment of his retiral dues. The petitioner argued that a prior contempt court order had granted him liberty to file a fresh petition for interest and that res judicata should not apply. The State contended that the petitioner had not handed over his charge, causing delay, and that no interest was payable. The High Court examined the doctrine of res judicata under Explanation V of Section 11 of the CPC, noting that it applies to writ proceedings and that the earlier writ petition had not been granted interest, thereby deeming the relief as refused. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the executing court cannot grant relief beyond what was decided by the original writ court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as barred by res judicata.

Issues considered

Whether the doctrine of res judicata under Explanation V of Section 11 CPC applies to writ petitions under Article 226.
Whether a liberty granted in a contempt (M.J.C.) proceeding can override the earlier decision of the writ court regarding interest.
Whether Section 141 of the CPC is applicable to writ proceedings.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on pensionary benefits despite alleged delay in handing over charge.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 11, 141

Subjects

res judicata
writ petition
Article 226
pension interest
Civil Procedure Code
public right
contempt court
M.J.C.
statutory interest

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9026 of 2024
======================================================
Chandra Mohan Singh Son of Sri Lalan Singh, Resident of House No. N-
11/58 A-10-H, Ranipur, Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Sinchai Circle, Water Resources Department,
Nawadah.
5. The Executive Engineer, Sinchai division, Water Resources Department,
Nawadah.
6. The Treasury Officer, Nawadah.
7. The Accountant General (Accounts and Entitlement), Bihar, Birchand Patel
Marg, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikrant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-02-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for

issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to pay interest on pension, gratuity, leave

encashment and arrears of pay/salary to the petitioner in the

wake of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and of this

Hon’ble Court on delayed payment of pensionary benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
2/10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in C.W.J.C.

No. 8676 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated

11.12.2018, wherein, it was held that the recovery was

impermissible in the absence of any order of punishment.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities were directed to make

payment of the petitioner’s retiral dues within a period of two

months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said

order. Counsel further submits that even after specific order

passed by this Hon’ble Court, the payment has not been made to

the petitioner towards retiral dues. Thereafter, the petitioner

filed M.J.C petition bearing M.J.C. No. 4373 of 2019 which was

disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2022 with liberty to the

petitioner to file a writ petition for claiming the interest.

Counsel submits that since, the liberty has been granted to the

petitioner in the said M.J.C petition to file a writ petition for

claiming the interest, therefore, it is due to this reason, the

petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which only

interest part has been demanded. Counsel further submits that

the provision of res judicata shall not apply in the present case,

as there was a specific liberty given by this Court in the M.J.C.

petition. In addition to that, he submits that section 141 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
3/10

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908) is very much

clear that the proceeding provided in the C.P.C does not include

any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, he submits that the C.P.C has no role in deciding the

present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has

been specifically stated that the petitioner is not entitled for

claimed relief because he has not handed over the charge at

Dumka Irrigation Division and due to that, updated service book

is not available at the office of respondent no.5. It has been

further stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent no.5

had made ample efforts to obtain the updated service book of

the present petitioner and for that, respondent no.5 issued

several letters to the officials at Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division,

where the writ petitioner was in service prior to the joining at

Nawada Irrigation Division. It has also been stated in the

counter affidavit that the Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division

informed that there was a pending charge of writ petitioner and

it is also evident from the Letter No. 247 dated 11.04.2018 that

Brijkhorwa Irrigation Division requested the Nawada Irrigation

Division to send the writ petitioner to hand over his entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
4/10

charge so that service book of writ petitioner may be sent to the

Nawada Irrigation Division. Counsel, therefore, submits that the

delay in fixation of pension is attributable to the conduct of the

petitioner, and the State officials are not responsible for the

same. Therefore, there is no question of payment of interest to

the petitioner in the present case.

5. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this

Court that the prayer made in earlier writ petition filed by the

petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of 2018 is that of payment of

pension, gratuity, leave encashment and statutory and panel

interest over his pensionary benefits. And, the observation made

by the Hon’ble Court in the said writ i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of

2018 vide order dated 11.12.2018, states as follows:-

“Considering the said facts, the recovery
being impermissible without any punishment
order, the respondent no.5, the Executive
Engineer is directed to make payment of the
retiral dues of the petitioner within a period
of two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Writ application is accordingly allowed.”

6. From the prayer and the relief, it transpires to

this Court that the prayer of statutory and penal interest was

demanded by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
5/10

C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of 2018 and from the relief portion, it

appears to this Court that on said statutory interest and penal

interest, there is absolutely no finding.

7. This Court hereby quotes the doctrine of res

judicata which is described in Explanation V of the section 11

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which categorically states

that “any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly

granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be

deemed to have been refused.”

8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the relief

which was demanded in the earlier writ petition on which no

finding has come, has been deemed to be refused, due to the

doctrine of res judicata in Explanation V of the section 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

9. It is true that, the M.J.C. petition which has been

filed by the petitioner bearing M.J.C. No. 4373 of 2019 was

disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2022 with liberty to the

petitioner to file a writ petition for claiming the interest.

10. A legal question which comes before this Court

that whether a relief which has not been granted by the Original

Court (Writ Court here) can be granted by the M.J.C. Court (i.e.

Contempt Court here in the present case)? This Court is of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
6/10

opinion that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the court

who is taking the final decision.

11. So far as the contention of the petitioner that

according to section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

the provision of C.P.C is not applicable on the applications

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicability

of the doctrine of res judicata to writ proceedings has been

upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court of

India in case of Association for Democratic Reforms Vs.

Election Commission of India and Another, reported in (2025)

2 SCC 732, wherein it has been categorically held in paragraphs

107 to 111 as under:–

“107. It is pertinent to reiterate that the
doctrine of res judicata is applicable to writ
petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 as
well. The inclusion of the term “public
right” in Explanation VI of Section 11 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 aims to avoid
redundant legal disputes concerning public
rights. Given this clarification, there is no
room for debate regarding the application of
Section 11 to matters of public interest
litigation presented through writ petitions.
108. In Daryao v. State of U.P. [Daryao v.
State of U.P., 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
(1962) 1 SCR 574] , a Constitution Bench of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
7/10

this Court emphasised that the rule of res
judicata is founded on significant public
policy considerations rather than being a
mere technicality. It was clarified that
petitioners seeking to challenge a decision
must present new grounds distinct from
those previously raised in order to escape
the bar of res judicata. The Bench
articulated this as follows:
“31. … We are satisfied that a change
in the form of attack against the
impugned statute would make no
difference to the true legal position
that the writ petition in the High
Court and the present writ petition
are directed against the same statute
and the grounds raised by the
petitioner in that behalf are
substantially the same.”
109. Another Constitution Bench of this
Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra
[Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'
Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC
715 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 339] followed the
aforesaid dictum to hold that the principles
of res judicata are not foreign to writ
petitions. A reference may be made to the
following paragraph :
“35. … It is well established that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
8/10

principles of res judicata are
applicable to writ petitions. The relief
prayed for on behalf of the petitioner
in the present case is the same as he
would have, in the event of his
success, obtained in the earlier writ
petition before the High Court. The
petitioner in reply contended that
since the special leave petition before
this Court was dismissed in limine
without giving any reason, the order
cannot be relied upon for a plea of
res judicata. The answer is that it is
not the order of this Court dismissing
the special leave petition which is
being relied upon; the plea of res
judicata has been pressed on the
basis of the High Court's judgment
which became final after the
dismissal of the special leave petition.
In similar situation a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Daryao v. State
of U.P. [Daryao v. State of U.P., 1961
SCC OnLine SC 21 : (1962) 1 SCR
574] held that where the High Court
dismisses a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution after hearing
the matter on the merits, a subsequent
petition in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 on the same facts and for
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
9/10

the same reliefs filed by the same
parties will be barred by the general
principle of res judicata. The binding
character of judgments of courts of
competent jurisdiction is in essence a
part of the rule of law on which the
administration of justice, so much
emphasised by the Constitution, is
founded and a judgment of the High
Court under Article 226 passed after
a hearing on the merits must bind the
parties till set aside in appeal as
provided by the Constitution and
cannot be permitted to be
circumvented by a petition under
Article 32. An attempted change in
the form of the petition or the grounds
cannot be allowed to defeat the plea
….”
110. No doubt, res judicata bars parties
from re-litigating issues that have been
conclusively settled. It is true that this
principle is not rigid in cases of substantial
public interest and constitutional courts are
empowered to adopt a flexible approach in
such cases, acknowledging their far-
reaching public interest ramifications.
111. However, this standard is applicable
only when substantial evidence is presented
to validate the irreversible harm or
Patna High Court CWJC No.9026 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026
10/10

detriment to the public good resulting from
the action impugned. The Court must come
to the conclusion that the petition is not just
an old wine in a new bottle, but rather
raises substantial grounds not previously
addressed in litigation. Only under these
circumstances may it consider such a
petition; otherwise, it is within its authority
to dismiss it at the threshold.”

12. In the light of the submissions made and upon

perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the firm view

that due to Explanation V of the section 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 i.e. doctrine of res judicata which is applicable

in the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, this writ petition is not fit to be allowed. Hence, this writ

petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17/02/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…