Compulsory retirement under an unconstitutional rule was void, and prior writ dismissal did not bar a later challenge.

A compulsory retirement order under Rule 5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules was held unsustainable because the rule was materially identical to a provision earlier struck down as inconsistent with constitutional protection against arbitrary compulsory retirement; the order made under it was therefore void and inoperative. The Court also held that dismissal of an earlier writ petition did not create constructive res judicata to bar a later suit challenging the retirement order, because a question of constitutional validity is not deemed concluded merely because it was not raised earlier, and a rule later declared unconstitutional cannot sustain a bar to fresh challenge. The appellant's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was valid. (ii) Whether the earlier dismissal of the writ petition operated as constructive res judicata to bar the subsequent suit challenging the retirement order.

Issue (i): Whether the order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 5.32(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was valid.

Analysis: The Rule authorised compulsory retirement of a permanent government servant after ten years' qualifying service. The Rule was materially identical to the provision earlier struck down by the Court as inconsistent with the protection against arbitrary compulsory retirement. Once that constitutional position was applied, the Rule could not stand, and an order made under it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The compulsory retirement order was invalid, void and inoperative, and the appellant was entitled to restoration of the trial court's decree.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier dismissal of the writ petition operated as constructive res judicata to bar the subsequent suit challenging the retirement order.

Analysis: Constructive res judicata is founded on public policy and prevents repeated litigation of matters that were or ought to have been directly and substantially in issue. However, a pure question of constitutional validity is not automatically deemed to have been decided merely because it was not raised in the earlier writ petition. When the governing law is later declared unconstitutional by a competent authority, the earlier assumption of validity cannot bar a fresh challenge. The earlier writ dismissal therefore did not preclude the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by constructive res judicata.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on both the merits and the plea of bar, the High Court's decisions were set aside, and the decree in the appellant's favour was restored with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior writ dismissal does not operate as constructive res judicata against a later suit challenging the constitutional validity of the governing rule when the rule is subsequently declared unconstitutional; an order founded on such a rule is void and cannot be sustained.

---