1. Heard Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent - State and Sri Ghaus Beg, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Brief fact of the case is that father of the petitioner died while in service while working on the post of Head Master in Primary School Paudha Medhakiha, District Bahraich on 27.07.1993. The petitioner claimed appointment on compassionate ground and when no order was passed, he filed writ petition No.2445 (SS) of 2004, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2004 with direction to the respondents to take decision on the application of the petitioner dated 07.06.1998 for appointment on compassion ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by this court has not been complied with and no order whatsoever has been passed on the claim setup by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. He submitted that in case direction is issued to the District Basic Education Officer - respondent No.3 to comply with the direction contained in judgment and order dated 25.05.2004, ends of justice would be met.
4. He further submitted that family of the petitioner is at the verge of starvation and still is not in a position to meet out the hardship arose due to death of the bread earner. His next submission is that, at present, the petitioner is remedyless and in case direction issued to comply with the direction issued under aforesaid order, he will be able to meet out the day to day affairs of the family.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that second petition on same cause of action is not maintainable. The petitioner has remedy to approach the court dealing with matter of contempt in case the order has not been complied with. They further submitted that filing of successive petitions has been depricated by this court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court. Their next submission is that there are latches on the part of the petitioner, for which he has to suffer.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. On perusal of record, it is evident that death of father of the petitioner took place on 27.07.1993. He filed writ petition No.2445 (SS) of 2004, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25.05.2004. It is also evident that the petitioner could not avail the remedy available to him within period prescribed under the relevant act. The second petition on the same cause of action is not permissible in law.
8. In view of the above, this court refuses to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
9. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
10. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition before appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 Adarsh K Singh