https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292678 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. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 17:00:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292678 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292678