AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyen Vaidya, J
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-
“(a) The respondent department may kindly be directed to implement the award dated 1.05.2010 passed by Ld. Labour Court in its totality and the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.01.2009 in work charge cadre on the basis of policy framed by the State Government on the basis of his seniority fall in the said cadre post.
(b) The writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant the pension benefits along with DCRG w.e.f. 7.10.2006 to the petitioner along with interest.
(c) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 04.08.2011 of petitioner within the time bound manner.”
Record reveals that on earlier occasion also the petitioner filed a petition being CWP No. 6827 of 2022 before this Court on the same and similar cause of action. The reliefs prayed in the earlier petition were as under:-
“(a) The respondent department may kindly be directed to implement the award dated 1.05.2010 passed by Ld. Labour Court in its totality and the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the husband of petitioner w.e.f. 1.01.2009 in work charge cadre on the basis of policy framed by the State Government on the basis of his seniority fall in the said cadre post.
(b) That the respondent may kindly be directed to provide service to the petitioner on compassionate ground being legal heir in work charge cadre as per the policy of the State Government for providing employment on compassionate ground and also respondent may kindly be directed to provide grant of widow pension to petitioner w.e.f. 17.10.2006.
(c) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 9.04.2012 of petitioner within time bound manner.”
CWP No. 6827 of 2022 was dismissed as not pressed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022. The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that he was under instructions to not to press the said petition.
In view of the filing of the earlier petition on the same cause of action and then the petitioner getting the same dismissed as not pressed, the instant petition on the same and similar cause of action will not be permissible and maintainable. Merely, some change in the relief clause has been made, will not alter the position. Even the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be an impediment in the way of the instant petition having been filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant petition is held to be not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.