- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner has approached this Court once again for a direction upon the respondents authorities of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd. to pay salary and allowances due since 1st June, 1993.
(2.) IT appears from perusal of Annexure -12, the order passed in CWJC No. 1287/1995(R) that the petitioner had earlier approached the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench for the same relief alleging that he has not received his salary since September,1992 and had made representations before the respondent no. 2 which were not being disposed of. The Patna High Court vide its order contained at Annexure -12 directed the respondent no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated time and if the petitioner was found to be working under the respondents corporation as a driver, his current and arrears of salary must be paid to him. The respondents have brought on record the order passed on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Patna High Court which is contained at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit dated 27th March, 1996 and is also enclosed to the writ petition contained at Annexure -15. From the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of the reasoned order (Annexure -A), it appears that the petitioner was asked to submit documents in order to show his engagement under the respondents within the stipulated period and the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not found to be authenticated by any competent authority in order to establish his claim. It was further indicated therein that the respondents corporation was suffering from severe financial crunch and was under liquidation. In spite of that the respondents found that the petitioner is entitled to payment of certain amount upto May, 1993 totaling Rs. 16,803/ which was issued vide Cheque dated 27th March, 1996. Accordingly, the petitioner's representations were disposed of by the said reasoned order in the year 1996 itself. This writ petition has again been preferred, inter alia, for the same relief although reasoned order has not been challenged in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the reasoned order the petitioner has again preferred representations (Annexures 16 to 18) before the respondents corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioner for payment of the arrears of salary for the said period which have not been responded to. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the submission made in the writ application that he has submitted bills pursuant to indication made by the Assistant of the respondents corporation which have not been responded to. Be that as it may, from the facts which have been brought on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the claim of the petitioner was earlier raised before the Patna High Court and upon direction of the Patna High Court the respondents passed a reasoned and speaking order in relation to his claim which are contained at Annexure -A to the counter affidavit as also Annexure -15 to the writ application. For the same relief the petitioner has again come before this Court without challenging the said reasoned order passed in the year 1996. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to entertain second writ petition for the same cause of action. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced documents authenticated by the competent authority showing his engagement as a driver for the period for which he claims salary from the respondents corporation.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction to grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.;