1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 383/2008 (Naresh Dayaramji Landge Vs. Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : APRIL 23, 2008. Heard Mr. Parchure, for the petitioner, Mrs. Shinde for respondent no.1 and Mrs. Bodade, A.G.P., for respondent nos. 2 and 3. The counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking employment on compassionate ground with the respondent- University, since father of the petitioner, who was in the employment of the respondent- University as Chowkidar (Class IV), came to be retired with effect from 31/3/2001. It is not in dispute that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 2739/2007, canvassing the same grievance. However, this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, if occasion 2 so arises. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has submitted application to the respondent- University for the purpose of seeking employment on the compassionate ground, wherein apart from the other things, it is specifically mentioned that the University has given appointment to various other persons on compassionate ground even though their parents were retired from service of the University after 14/4/1981. However, since the University has not taken any decision on the said application, the petitioner has once again filed the present petition seeking appropriate directions. Mrs. Shinde, the counsel for the respondent no.1- University, submitted that the Government Resolution on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since the same is applicable to the employees of the respondent no.1- University who were retired prior to 1981, whereas father of the petitioner stood retired in the year 2001. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. At the outset, we would like to 3 express that since the cause of action involved in the present writ petition and the one involved in the earlier writ petition, being similar, the petitioner having permitted to withdraw the earlier petition, this Court cannot entertain the second petition for the same cause. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition if occasion arises. The cause of action involved in the present writ petition is identical to one involved in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, which was withdrawn by the petitioner. There is no separate and independent cause of action other than the one involved in the earlier writ petition and, therefore, the present petition, in our view, is not maintainable. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-University has given appointments on compassionate ground to various persons whose parents were retired after 1981, is concerned, we are of the view that merely because the University has committed a mistake by giving appointments inconsistent with the 4 provisions of Government Resolution dated 14/4/1981, it will not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner to claim the same benefits and, therefore, the petition, apart from being not maintainable, also suffers from lack of merits. Hence same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RMP