IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 183 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.1.2011. Smt. Bimla Devi …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G., for respondents No. 1 to 3. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed mainly the following relief:- (i) That the present original application filed by the applicant may kindly be allowed in the favour of the applicant and the applicant may kindly be allowed for all consequential and subsequent benefits alongwith seniority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as part time water carrier in Government Primary School, Pipalghat, under clause 12 of the Part Time Water Carrier Scheme, but respondent No. 4 did not issue the appointment letter to her. In these circumstances, the petitioner had to approach erstwhile Tribunal and filed OA No. 2467 of 2002, which was decided on 3.1.2007 and a direction was given by the Tribunal to Pradhan- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… respondent No.4 herein to accept the joining of the petitioner and execute the agreement within a period of one month from the date of order. In compliance to order dated 3.1.2007, the respondent No. 4 herein had allowed the petitioner to join as part time water carrier. The petitioner in the present petition has prayed that respondents No. 1 to 3 may be ordered to grant pay, seniority and all consequential benefits to the petitioner and salary may be ordered to be recovered from respondent No. 4 personally. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that in OA No. 2467 of 2002, the relief for grant of pay, seniority and all consequential benefits and recovery of salary from respondent NO. 4 herein was not made. It emerges from the material on record that cause of action for filing the present petition is materially not different from the cause of action for filing OA No. 2467 of 2002. In the earlier petition, the petitioner has not prayed for payment of salary, seniority etc. and recovery of salary from respondent NO. 4 herein personally. The petitioner in her wisdom in the earlier petition had opted not to claim the present reliefs, which she has prayed in the present petition even though she could have prayed all these reliefs in the earlier petition. In these circumstances, the present petition is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected. January 5, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.