WA 13/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Heard Mr B Islam, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr M Khatanier, the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. The appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judges in WP (C) No. 3293 of 2010 and the order dated 22 .11.2010 in WP (C) No. 6165 of 2010 dismissing these writ petitions. In the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge , the operative part of the order runs as follows: - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents annexed, this Court is disinclined to accede to the prayer made. Not only, the petitioner allegedly has not been paid his salar y from January, 1996, there is no tangible and persuasive material on record to establish that any effort worth the name and cognizable in law has been made by him with the departmental authorities in the interregnum for mitigation of his g rievances. The petition is not only unduly delayed no explanation for the petiti oner’s procrastination is forthcoming as well. In the above view of the matter this petition stands dismissed. No costs . Again in the order dated 22.11.2010, the operative part of the o rder runs as follows; - Apart from the above, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fac t that the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court by order dated 11.06.2010 passed in WP(C) No.3293/2010. The writ petition 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 time and ag ain for release of salary, it was noticed that there was no material to establis h the same. Now by filing the instant writ petition, Mr B Islam, the learned cou nsel for the petitioner submits that in the present writ petition, materials hav e been placed on record to show that the petitioner had been making representati on 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 pro cess 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 beyond Decem ber 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 dism issed with I accordingly do awarding a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be realised from th e petitioner by the Registry in accordance with law. The cost shall be realised as expeditiously as possible, preferably within Febru ary, 2011 . A perusal of the aforesaid two orders would indicate tha t the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judges in the two case s on the ground of delay. The service of the appellant was admittedly not extend ed beyond December, 1995. Yet the petitioner filed the writ petition only in 201 0 i.e. about 15 years after the non-extension of the service of his service. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the learned Single Judges in both the cases took the view that the writ petitions were not maintainable. In our opini on, we do not find any ground for up-setting the impugned orders. The views take n by the learned Single Judges in both the cases, in our judgment, are possible views and were so taken in exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction. We cann ot substitute the views taken by them by our views unless their views suffer fro m irrationality or illegality. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable t o point out any infirmity of the nature referred to above. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is acc ordingly dismissed, but by directing the parties to bear their respective cost.