[2025:RJ-JP:39050] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18306/2024 Madan Lal Son of Amar Lal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Awalheda, Tehsil Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. Presently Working on The Post of Chokidar, Ambedkar Boys Hostel, Kalu Khedi District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of Rajasthan, Near 22 Godam Bridge, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer: "A. By an appropriate, writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to regularized services of petitioner on the post of Class-IV Servant and similar benefits should be given to the petitioner as per judgment of Dhula Ram Vs. State (Annexure-1). B. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection with similar prayer for seeking regularization in service. Earlier, the petitioner along with so many other persons, filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7289/2016, which was decided by a common judgment dated 25.04.2017 [2025:RJ-JP:39050] (2 of 3) [CW-18306/2024] passed in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 372/2013 (Anokh Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 3. Bare perusal of order dated 25.04.2017 passed earlier in the batch of cases led by Anokh Bai (supra) would make it clear that the prayer therein was also for regularization in service, however, the same was denied specifically by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by giving following specific findings: "In the light of the discussion made above, I am inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of wages at the rate of minimum of the pay scale for the post of Cook and Watchman while denying the benefit of regularization sought by them, as otherwise not pressed by the petitioners" 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of above the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, the present writ petition with a same prayer is not maintainable. It has also been submitted that the order/judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) has attained finality. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the said facts; however, it is submitted that earlier, the relief of a regularization was not pressed by the petitioner in the light of judgments prevailing at the relevant time, yet since in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8558/2018) decided on 19.08.2025, favourable directions were issued, therefore, the petitioner can press his prayer for regularization. [2025:RJ-JP:39050] (3 of 3) [CW-18306/2024] 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the record. 7. Bare perusal of the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anokh Bai (supra) would reveal that while not pressing the prayer for regularization, at no point of time, any liberty was sought by the petitioner for raising the dispute in future and in absence of any such liberty sought and granted by the Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to make same prayer by way of filing another writ petition. 8. In case of Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior & Ors, 1987 (1) SCC 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of withdrawing the earlier writ petition and without obtaining liberty, filing a subsequent writ petition with the same prayers. 9. In the light of above, legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition, having been filed after withdrawal of the earlier one without liberty, is not maintainable. Permitting such a course would amount to permitting abuse of process of law and would defeat the principle of finality in litigation. 10. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/32