JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned GP-4 for the State.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to pay them the wages for the period that they had worked before their services were terminated.

4. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 4424 of 2006 which was unconditionally withdrawn vide order dated 28.03.2012.

5. On the ground of such unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition for the same relief, the present writ petition with the same prayer was argued to be not maintainable by the learned counsel appearing for the State. With reference to a decision of full Bench of this Court delivered in Mahanth Ramkinkar Das vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 1 PLJR 909, it was urged that an unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition would bar the second petition on the same cause of action, not in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in terms of public policy of not permitting the litigants to come to the court time and again on the basis of same cause of action.

6. The matter was heard on 25.07.2019 and was posted for 08.08.2019 for further discussion over the legal position with respect to bar of a second proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the event of the petitioner having unconditionally withdrawn an earlier writ petition which was filed for the same relief.

7. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioners has referred to Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Company Ltd. vs. Workmen and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 663 wherein the appellant, a manufacturing company had challenged the award of the Tribunal in a Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, which appeal after notice to the respondent to enter appearance, was withdrawn. Four days thereafter, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay virtually on the same set of facts and the grounds which had been taken in the special leave to appeal. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground of such issues having been agitated after the SLP was withdrawn unconditionally. The Supreme Court after referring to Workmen vs. Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust, 1978 (3) SCC 119, Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand, (1978) 2 SCC 144, Hoshnak Singh vs. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 135, Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1962) 1 SCR 574 : AIR 1961 SC 1457, Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 and A.M. Allison vs. B.L. Sen, AIR 1957 SC 227 held that the permission to withdraw leave petition cannot be equated with an order for its dismissal.

8. It was further held that the High Court of Bombay did not exercise a proper and sound discretion in dismissing the writ petition in limine on the sole ground that the application for special leave on the same set of facts and grounds had been withdrawn unconditionally.

9. In V.D. Barot vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2002) 10 SCC 668, the appellant had challenged his discharge from service because of a criminal case by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat, which was withdrawn by him to enable him to make a representation regarding his discharge. After the representation was rejected, the appellant had filed another writ petition challenging the rejection of his representation, which was dismissed on the sole basis that the earlier withdrawal of the case was unconditional and therefore the appellant could not have re-agitated the same matter. The Division Bench of the High Court also was of the view that the appellant had abandoned the writ proceedings in the first instance and therefore the Single Judge was not correct in not entertaining his second writ petition.

10. The aforesaid orders of the High Court did not find favour with the