Finality of writ judgment bars belated monetary claim for unworked period after no further challenge was taken.

A belated claim for additional monetary relief for a period not actually worked could not be reopened after the earlier writ judgment had attained finality. The writ court had already examined entitlement and limited relief to the period actually worked, but no challenge was made under Article 136 and no review was sought before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court could not treat the matter as still open or reconsider the concluded issue after about two years. The additional claim was therefore not entertainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's belated claim for monetary relief for the period during which he had not actually worked, after the writ judgment had become final, could be entertained.

Analysis: The earlier writ judgment had already considered the respondent's entitlement and granted monetary relief only for the period actually worked. The respondent did not challenge that judgment under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or seek review before the High Court, and the judgment had therefore attained finality. In these circumstances, the High Court could not reopen the concluded matter after about two years or treat the respondent's additional claim as still open.

Conclusion: The additional monetary claim was not entertainable and was rejected; the impugned order was set aside.

---