THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.76 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Cleaner in the A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1979. He was removed from service on disciplinary grounds on 24.09.1991. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, being I.D.No.814 of 1992, before the Labour Court, against the order of dismissal. The Labour Court passed an award, directing reinstatement of the petitioner as fresh candidate with continuity of service, but without back wages. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28823 of 1998. The writ petition was allowed on 03.08.2000 and the relief of reinstatement into service with continuity of service but without back wages, was granted. The pay scale of the petitioner was fixed without taking into account the period of service from the date of suspension to the period of reinstatement. He was also not extended the benefit of certain increments. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.21707 of 2002. That writ petition was allowed, directing that the pay scale of the petitioner shall be fixed duly taking into account the period from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement also. That direction has been complied with, after the petitioner filed C.C.No.1136 of 2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefit of special grade increment was denied. He also prays for restoration of deferred increments and for re-fixation of his pay and seniority. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The root cause for the petitioner to pursue various remedies, be it before the Labour Court, or this Court, is the order of dismissal passed on 24.09.1991. The Labour Court granted the relief to the extent of directing appointment of the petitioner, as fresh candidate. It was directed that he shall be entitled to continuity of service. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28823 of 1998. It was allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner. Except that the back wages were denied, in all other respects, the award of the Labour Court was upheld. Having regard to the peculiar nature of the relief granted at various stages, there was some uncertainty as to the extension of benefits to the petitioner, after reinstatement. Two years after W.P.No.28833 of 1998 was allowed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21707 of 2002, complaining that notional increments were not extended to him. By that time, the grievance, which is now pointed out in the writ petition, was very much there. However, he has not chosen to claim any relief. Even if it was claimed in specific terms, it would be deemed to have not been granted. The petitioner cannot split the cause of action and file separate writ petitions for each facet of the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.11.2010. GJ