HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9937 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Hon'ble Mr. M.M. Asthana, learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite party to permit petitioner to perform duties of Tube-well Operator. Further prayer for considering his case for regularization on the said post on the basis of past continuous and satisfactory service and for payment of regular pay-scale has also been sought. 3. Learned State Counsel at the very outset has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that earlier as well petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.4277 (S/S) of 2004, challenging the oral order of termination dated 02.04.2004 wherein consequential prayers were also sought. It is submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 particularly indicating that relief as prayed for cannot be granted while leaving it open to opposite parties to employ petitioner in service, if they so desire. It is submitted that subsequently petitioner filed Writ Petition No.17152 of 2021 again seeking the same prayers challenging the oral order of termination dated 02.04.2004 alongwith continuance on post and for payment of salary. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.08.2021. Special Appeal Defective No.111 of 2022 was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 whereafter Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No.14545 of 2023 also stood dismissed but with a direction that salary payment of petitioner since November 2003 to March 2004 should be paid. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, the aforesaid directions have been complied with due to which Contempt Petition (Civil) No.76 of 2024 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has been closed. With regard to such submissions, learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 21.08.2025, a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukund Madhava Asthana Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Surendra Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Jail, Jail Administration/ Reform Services Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) copy of which is taken on record. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner in rebuttal thereof submits that a perusal of the earlier judgments would clearly indicate the fact that petitioner was engaged in service since the year 1997 and was terminated from service in the year 2004 whereafter the instant writ petition was filed. It is therefore submitted that the opposite parties were under the bounden duty to consider petitioner's case for regularization at the time when he was in service and his non-consideration was the only factor due to which he has been non-suited and led to his oral termination. 5. Upon considerations of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the facts as narrated herein above are admitted between the parties. It is also evident that the initial writ petition no.4277 (S/S) 2004 had challenged the oral order of termination of service dated 02.04.2004. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2020, specifically indicating that relief as prayed for in the petition could not be granted. It is admitted that the said judgment and order attained finality whereafter the second Writ Petition No.17152 (S/S) of 2021 that was filed and has also been dismissed primarily on the ground of maintainability being a second Writ Petition. Special Appeal and Special Leave Petitions there against have already been dismissed. 6. It is also admitted that in pursuance of directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the outstanding payment of wages to petitioner have already been paid. 7. In such circumstances as noticed herein above, it is evident that the present writ petition would clearly amount to a third writ petition and would therefore be an abuse of process of law. 8. Considering aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. Petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. 9. It is however made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to act in accordance with judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 whereby it was left open to the opposite parties to employ petitioner in service, if they so desire. September 2, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 9937 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench