MC 3430/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY In this writ appeal the challenge is against the order dated 4th June, 2004 pass ed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2621/2003. Although the application for condonation of delay does not indicate the extent o f delay, the Registry has calculated a delay of 1966 days, which is more than 6 years. We find the explanation for this delay to be totally unsatisfactory, the explana tion being that the respondent had assured the appellant that he would be grante d the back wages, which were denied by the learned Single Judge. Although, we do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay, we have heard l earned counsel for the appellant even on merits of the case. The appellant was working as a Headmaster in a School in Karbi Anglong District in Assam. He was discharged from service by an order dated 5.9.1995. He challenged the ord er of discharge by filing CR No.5167/95.This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 14th August, 2001 with a direction that the appellant sh ould be given a hearing before his discharge from service. At this stage, it is necessary to note that in the earlier writ petition being C R No.5167/95, there was a specific prayer for a direction to the respondents to release/pay the salary to the appellant from 1.3.1995 onwards apart from reinsta ting him in service. This relief was not granted to the petitioner, or at least there was no mention about this relief in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 14th August , 2001. The appellant also did not take up the matter either by way of an appeal or by way of a review petition with regard to payment of back wages to him. Be that as it may, in compliance with the order dated 14th August, 2001, the app ellant was given a hearing and thereafter, he was discharged from service by an order dated 21.1.2003. Feeling aggrieved by the discharge order, the appellant preferred a writ petitio n out of which the present order in appeal has arisen. The learned Single Judge noted the facts of the case, which we have broadly summ arized above. The learned Single Judge also noted that despite a specific prayer having been m ade by the appellant for reinstatement with full back wages, that prayer was not granted to the appellant. The learned Single Judge referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey & ors. , (2001) 1 SCC 73 and Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit Vs. Jagdishchandra & ors.), ( 2001) 3 SCC 332 to come to the conclusion that back wages are not a necessary co nsequence of reinstatement and if no order is passed with regard to payment of b ack wages, it is deemed that that prayer has been rejected. Relying upon these two decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge concluded that since on the earlier occasion the appellant had not been granted back wages, a fresh writ petition on the same subject could not be entertained. The learned Single Judge than dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant . In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in law in d eclining the grant of back wages to the appellant. It is a matter of record that the appellant had earlier approached this Court wi th a specific prayer for granting back wages to him from 1.3.1995 onwards. This prayer was not granted to the appellant and must be deemed to be rejected (State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey). The appellant did not file any appeal or any review petition against the failure of the learned Single Judge to grant bac k wages to him in the earlier case. In other words, the appellant accepted the d enial of back wages. Under these circumstances, a second writ petition on the same subject for paymen t of back wages would not be maintainable and even if it is entertained it canno t be allowed. Some finality has also to be attached to the earlier order of this Court. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the ba sis of the decisions of the Supreme Court. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.