WP(C) 6165/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Barkataki, learned Standing Counsel, Education. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- Under the above circumstances it is therefore prayed that your Lordship would be kind enough to admit this application, call for the records and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus o r any other appropriate writ order or direction shall not be issued directing th e respondents to release his retention, unpaid salaries and other allowances sin ce January, 1996 to till date and to pay the current salaries to the petitioner and also regularisation of his service as per law by disposed of this petition a s your Lordship deem fit and proper. Although the petitioner has claimed salary from January, 1996 but on the face of it he is not entitled to the same as his temporary appointment came to an end in December, 1995. He was first appointed by Annexure-1 order dated 22.2. 1994 for a period of three months. Thereafter, his service was extended by order s dated 16.8.94, 16.3.95, 30.5.95 and finally on 26.9.95. On each occasion, the extension was for three months duration. As noted above, the last extension was on 26.9.95. In view of the above, there is no question of payment of salary to the p etitioner from January, 1996, although it is the claim of the petitioner that he has been serving in the School. Apart from the above, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner has already been rejected b y this Court by order dated 11.6.2010 passed in WP(C) 3293/2010. The writ petiti on was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Regarding the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having approached the concerned departmental authorities tim e and again for release of salary, it was noticed that there was no material to establish the same. Now by filling the instant writ petition, Mr. B. Islam, lear ned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present writ petition, materi als have been placed on record to show that the petitioner had been making repre sentation to the authorities. I am afraid, by taking such a plea the petitioner cannot have a second round of litigation on the same issue. This is an abuse of the process of law. One cannot be permitted to approach the writ court again and again on same cause of action with different pleas. Above apart, the service of the petitioner having not been extended beyo nd December, 1995, he is not entitled to claim salary from January, 1996. Thus, on both counts the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed which I accordingly do awarding a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be realis ed from the petitioner by the Registry in accordance with law. The cost shall be realised as expeditiously as possible, preferably with in February, 2011.