::1:: SAW-391-10/9.8.2010 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.391/2010 Umesh Chander Bairathi Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Anr. Date of Judgment : 9.8.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr. G.K. Garg for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2009, whereby the learned Single Judge had issued notices only with respect to payment of voluntary retirement benefits, which otherwise has been paid to the appellant-petitioner. However, the petitioner's prayer with respect to restoration of his employment has not been accepted. Aggrieved by the rejection of his first prayer seeking restoration of employment, appellant-petitioner has approached this Court by filing this appeal. The learned Single Judge has observed that the two prayers of the appellant-petitioner are contradictory to each other, that is :- “(1) in regard to restoration of employment as application for his voluntary retirement has been arbitrarily accepted by respondents; and (2) at the same breath, he has further prayed for voluntary retiral dues which he is otherwise entitled for, despite order of this Court dated 10/12/2008 in CWP-6098/2008 have not been paid to him so far besides interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.” ::2:: SAW-391-10/9.8.2010 We have examined the writ petition No.6098/2008 and its judgment. First five prayers made in the writ petition No.6098/2008 were basically with regard to payment of the retiral benefits. However, the sixth prayer was to the effect that the respondents be directed to withdraw the retirement order dated 3.1.2005. The voluntary retirement order was not challenged by the appellant-petitioner in the said writ petition. While deciding the aforesaid writ petition, learned court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent to redress his grievance, if advised. According to the spirit of the judgment, in fact, that liberty was granted regarding payment of retiral benefits. However under the garb of the said order, now the appellant while filing writ petition No.14886/2009 has even challenged the order of voluntary retirement. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the prayers made by the petitioner are contradictory to each other. The learned Single Judge has rightly refused to entertain the prayer No.1 because right from the very beginning intention of the appellant-petitioner was to get his retiral benefits which have been paid to him. However, since the liberty was granted and the appellant-petitioner is asking for more payment of retiral benefits, notices have already been issued by the learned Single Judge on that part of the writ petition. ::3:: SAW-391-10/9.8.2010 In view of the above, no interference is warranted and this appeal accordingly is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Skant/-