SBCWP No.1784/2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1784/2000. Inder Raj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- 2/7/2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. Giriraj Prasad Sharma for the petitioner. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by Inder Raj Singh, an employee of the Irrigation Department of the State as Driver. In the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that respondents required him to work as a Driver and that the services of the petitioner are governed by Work Charge Rules, 1964 (for short, the "Rules of 1964"). After completion of period of 2 years of working as Driver, the services of the petitioner were required to be treated as 'semi permanent status' in view of the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1964 more particularly when there are large number of vacant post of Driver in the service. It has therefore been prayed that respondents be directed to give him pay scale and allowances in the grade of Driver and they may further be directed to grant him backwages of the SBCWP No.1784/2000. 2 benefits as per revised pay scale from 1/3/1983. 2) Smt.Parinitoo Jain, learned Deputy Government Cousnel has objected to maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that petitioner has already availed of remedy of writ petition earlier being filed by him being SBCWP No.3095/1992 in which also, same relief that has been prayed for herein was prayed for therein. Learned Deputy Government Counsel submitted that the present writ petition be therefore dismissed. 3) A perusal of the memorandum of writ petition No.3095/92 show that petitioner therein prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him grade/pay scale of Driver in the pay scale of 950-1680 and had claimed for arrears of and benefits of new revised pay scale w.e.f. 1/3/1983 with a further direction to the respondents to regularise him on the said post according to the rules. Those very prayers are reiterated in the present writ petition. Further the petitioner in para 10 of the present writ petition has wrongly made a declaration suppressing the material fact that 'no such writ petition has been filed either before this Court or before Supreme Court of India prior to it'. The fact however is that petitioner filed a writ petition earlier in 1992 which was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 5/7/1997 by a detailed judgment. Thus besides the fact that this petition shall be barred by principle of res judicata, the petitioner is SBCWP No.1784/2000. 3 guilty of suppression of material fact. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil