- (1.) This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution moved by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8033 (S/S) of 1988 on the allegation that opposite parties have not complied the judgment and order dated 29.3.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 8033 (S/S) of 1988. The perusal of judgment dated 29.3.2006 aforesaid, indicates that petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 2855 of 1981 and prior to that he had also preferred claim petition before U.P. State Public Service Tribunal claiming therein for confirmation of the services. The said claim petition was allowed and being aggrieved thereof U.P. Jal Nigam had challenged the order of the Tribunal, the same was numbered as Writ Petition No. 107 of 1983. Both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing and decided by a common judgment dated 29.11.1984. The writ petition preferred by petitioner against termination order, i.e., Writ Petition No. 2855 of 1981 was allowed whereas writ petition preferred by opposite parties against the order of Tribunal being W.P. No. 107 of 1983 was dismissed. Petitioner after obtaining certified copy of the order produced the same before opposite parties and requested that petitioner be treated in continuity of service with all benefits accruing to him as if he was in service and his services were never terminated. As the opposite parties failed to pass appropriate orders in his favour, petitioner had preferred an application for clarification of the judgment and order dated 29.11.1984, the said application was numbered as CM. Application No. 5791 (W) of 1986 and the Court was pleased to pass the following order on 5.9.1986. C.M. Appln. No. 110757 of 2008 filed under Article 215 of the Constitution: The applicant was petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2855 of 1981. He was aggrieved by termination of his services. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 29.11.1984, operative portion of which reads as under: Thus, in the end Writ Petition No. 2855 of 1981 is allowed with costs and the impugned order of termination dated 21.5.1981 (Annexure-6) is quashed. Writ Petition No. 107 of 1983 is dismissed with costs. Grievance of applicant is that despite the fact that this Court quashed order of termination of service he is not being allowed continuity of service. Submission of learned counsel for applicant is correct that in view of the fact that the order terminating petitioner's service was quashed, petitioner is entitled to continuity of service. We accordingly clarify our order dated 29.11.1984 by providing that the petitioner will be allowed continuity in service with all consequential benefits including payment of salary.
(2.) After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, petitioner had made several representations to opposite parties but the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2855 of 1981 was not complied with by opposite parties. It was in these circumstances that petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 8033 (S/S) of 1988 praying for following reliefs: (a) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to comply the order dated 5.9.1986 quoted above in para-15 and pages 5, 6, 7 of the writ petition passed in the writ petition No. 2855 1981 within two weeks or so; (b) a writ any other order or direction commanding the opposite parties to pay the petitioner's loss for as the order of this Hon'ble Court has not complied with till today and petitioner has not given the benefit as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 5.9.1986 in writ petition No. 2855 of 1981 as damages; (c) to pass any other order or direction in the circumstances of the case and to allow the writ petition with costs.
(3.) The Court vide judgment and order dated 29.3.2006 had come to conclusion that the relief claimed by petitioner in the instant writ petition and in writ petition No. 2855 of 1981 are identical in nature and as such in view of Chapter VII, Rule XIII of the High Court Rules it is clear that successive relief for the same cause of action is not maintainable. While dismissing the writ petition the Court had observed that petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedy by moving an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India or initiation of contempt proceedings in accordance with law of Contempt of Court Act. It was thereafter that application under Article 215 of the Constitution was preferred by the petitioner on 3.12.2008.;