1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 429 of 2008 (S/S) Narendra Singh S/o late Sri Kundan Singh R/o Post Office Dharampur Chauraha, Dharampur, District Udham Singh Nagar. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Irrigation Department, Dehradun. 2. Chief Engineer (Head of Department) Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand, Yamuna Colony, Dehradun. 3. Chairman & Managing director T.H.D.C. Bhagirathi Puram, New Delhi. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974. 3) In the earlier round of litigation the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1625 (S/S) of 2007, which was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.11.2007, directing the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, Bhagirathi Puram, New Tehri (hereinafter referred as THDC) to decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. In compliance of said order, the said authority appears to have decided the representation vide its order dated 19 / 25 January 2008. In said order, copy of which is Annexure –2 to the writ petition, it is mentioned that the THDC is the joint Venture of Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also stated that the aforesaid rules of 1974 are not applicable to the THDC. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner was given offer of absorption in THDC (as earlier he was employee of the U.P. Irrigation Department), but he did not accept the offer and remained absent till his death. 4) It is pertinent to mention here that admittedly death of the petitioner’s father took place on 19.11.1993. Now, after a period of 14 years, the present writ petition is being filed. The earlier writ petition which was filed in the year 2007, was also disposed of finally and the 3 petitioner was happy with the order dated 06.11.2007, passed in said writ petition. The petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue by filing fresh writ petition without having a new cause of action. Apart from this, the aforesaid rules of 1974, permits to dependant of the government servant to seek job, within a period of five years of the death of the government servant. In the present case, now 14 years have lapsed. 5) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of Standing Counsel for the State and the counsel for the THDC, and after going through the annexures filed with the writ petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No. 3442 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. June 12, 2008. H.Negi