WPSS/740/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2165 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
SL. No   Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPSS No. 740 of 2021
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Through Video Conferencing)

Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Indu Sharma, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioners, before this Court, had preferred this Writ Petition, praying for that a writ of mandamus, may be issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary payable to the petitioners, on the post of Clerk from the date of their initial appointment and, simultaneously, a prayer has also been made that the respondents may be directed to implement the recommendation which had been made by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Tehri Garhwal, on 20th July, 2017.

The brief fact, which engages consideration in this Writ Petition, are that the petitioners, had contended that they were initially appointed as Clerk in 1996, with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Tehri Garhwal, though as daily wage employees and, later on, their services were regularised on the said post of Clerk in 2001. But since the benefit of salary admissible to them was not being paid to the petitioners right from the date of their regularization, therefore, the petitioners had approached the Writ Court by preferring a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 988 of 2003, Om Prakash and others Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad and others, with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to make the payment of regular salary from the date of their respective dated of regularization of their services and accordingly with the said direction, the Writ Petition was disposed of way back on 8th May, 2008.

The petitioners alleging non compliance of the said judgement of 8th May, 2008, had filed a Contempt Petition, being Contempt Petition No. 305 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on the ground that enforcement of the judgment of 8th May, 2008, by filing a Contempt Petition in 2013, would be barred by the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and, accordingly, the Contempt Petition was dismissed on 22nd October, 2013.

Be that as it may. It is not only that, at this stage, the petitioners contention stand closed, rather subsequent to the dismissal of Writ Petition and the Contempt Petition (as aforesaid), he has preferred yet another Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 104 of 2014, Om Prakash Shah and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein, the same prayer was reiterated, that they may be granted salary from the date of regularization of their services, may be for whatsoever legal advice which was extended to the petitioners at that time, the petitioners filed a Withdrawal Application No. 7561 of 2016, praying that the Writ Petition may be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, but however, the Coordinate Bench while passing the order of 12th August, 2016, on the second Writ Petition has not reserved, the liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh Writ Petition, as against for the same cause of action. The order passed on 12th August, 2016, is extracted hereunder :-

"Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vinod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.

Petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court with a prayer that they may be given their salary from the date of their regularization.

In this matter, counter affidavit was called for.

Now a withdrawal application (CLMA No. 7561 of 2016) has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that they may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.

Permission granted.

Writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated." The petitioners contend that during the intervening period, the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad on 20.07.2017, had recommended for the payment of the salary w.e.f. the date of regularization, by an order dated 20th July, 2017, but the same was not paid. Hence, they had preferred representations on different dates, when they were not decided, the present Writ Petition has been instituted on 20th June, 2021, praying for a direction by way of writ of mandamus to the respondents for paying the salary from the date of regularizaton.

This Court is of the opinion that when the petitioners had already approached the Writ Court, for the second time, praying for an identical relief for payment of the salary from the date of their regularization and that Writ Petition was not pressed by the petitioners and it was rather voluntarily withdrawn, in that eventuality, any subsequent proceedings drawn by the petitioners by filing the Writ Petition, for the same cause of action or the relief at the subsequent stage would not be maintainable being concurrent Writ Petition for the same cause of action.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid limited ground that since the earlier Writ Petition was voluntarily got dismissed as withdrawn, the successive Writ Petition for the same relief would not be maintainable and hence, the same is according dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 01.07.2021 Shiv