The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a batch of two special appeals, holding that a litigant cannot be permitted to repeatedly agitate issues that have already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court and subsequently affirmed in multiple rounds of litigation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh upheld a learned Single Judge’s order, invoking the principles of constructive res-judicata and the “Henderson Principle” to bar the appellant from raising claims in new writ petitions that “could and ought to have been raised” in previous proceedings.
The Court dismissed Special Appeal No. 496 of 2023 and Special Appeal Defective No. 215 of 2025, which were filed by appellant Amar Nath Dwivedi against a common judgment dated 03.10.2023. The 2023 judgment had dismissed his Writ-A No. 8096 of 2022 and Writ-A No. 7557 of 2022.
Background of the Case
The judgment, authored by Justice Jaspreet Singh, details a litigation history originating from the appellant’s contractual engagement as a training officer with the U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mill’s Federation Ltd. from 1998 to 1999. Before his contract ended, he was appointed in Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan-Education.
The appellant’s initial writ petition regarding his service was allowed by the High Court in 2002, a decision upheld by a Division Bench in 2006. However, the U.P. Cooperative Spinning Mill’s Federation Ltd. appealed to the Supreme Court.
By a judgment and order dated 02.03.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Mill’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgments. The Apex Court held: “In view of above, the claim of the respondent that he was in permanent employment of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited and in that capacity he was on deputation falls to the ground. On that basis his entitlement to claim absorption in the State services can not be sustained.”
The Supreme Court “categorically noted that though they held Amar Nath Dwivedi had no locus to claim employment under the State yet the State was not debarred from engaging the services of the appellant… on such terms and conditions as may be found to be appropriate in accordance with law.”
Multiple Rounds of Litigation
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2017 order, the appellant “initiated another spate of petitions.” He filed four writ petitions (Writ-A No. 1629/2013, No. 200/2014, No. 17420/2016, and No. 21517/2019), which were all dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide a common order dated 11.05.2022. This dismissal was subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 320 of 2022 on 19.10.2022.
The appellant also filed contempt petitions and applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed. Review petitions against the 2022 orders were also dismissed.
Following these dismissals, the appellant filed two new petitions in 2022 (Writ-A No. 7557/2022 and No. 8096/2022), seeking reliefs for repatriation, salary, increments, and other dues. These petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 03.10.2023, who invoked the principles of constructive res-judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This 2023 dismissal was the subject of the present special appeals.
Arguments in the Special Appeal
The appellant, appearing in person, argued that the learned Single Judge had “skipped the submissions and did not examine the grievance,” erroneously invoked Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and ignored observations from the earlier Special Appeal No. 320 of 2022, thereby causing “grave injustice.”
Counsel for the respondents, led by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, contended that the “grievance sought to be raised by the appellant already stands concluded” by the Apex Court’s 2017 order. They argued that the appellant “is in a habit of engaging in repeated litigation” and that the instant appeal was “another attempt to keep the authorities engaged in frivolous litigation.”
Court’s Analysis and Application of ‘Henderson Principle’
The Division Bench observed that any claims the appellant had were “washed out the moment Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 02.03.2017 had allowed the Special Leave Petitions.”
The Court held that the appellant was now attempting to re-agitate the same issues. “All the issues and grounds which were available with the appellant ought to have been taken altogether and it is not permissible in the law for a party to claim reliefs in piece meal,” the Bench stated.
The judgment extensively relied on the ‘Henderson Principle’, as explained by the Apex Court in Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bagna (2024). The Court quoted the principle’s origin from Henderson v. Henderson (1843): “…where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation… the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward…”
The Bench also cited Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co, reinforcing the “underlying public interest… that there should be finality in litigation and that a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.”
Applying this doctrine, the High Court held: “Applying the aforesaid principle to the instant case, this Court finds that the issues sought to be raise by the appellant were already considered and merely by raising certain issues which though stemmed from the cause of action which was already available and availed by the appellant and having lost, making the said orders final cannot now be permitted to be raised.”
Final Decision
Finding “no error” in the learned Single Judge’s judgment dated 03.10.2023, the Division Bench concluded that the appellant “could not demonstrate as to how the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petitions are bad.”
The Court ruled that the “instant intra court appeals are devoid of merits and are dismissed.” The Bench, however, refrained from imposing any costs on the appellant.
