Relief sought must align with previous orders and comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 5th May, 2010, made by the Writ Court in CWP (T) No. 5163 of 2008, titled as Shri Ghan Shyam versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned judgment”).

2. It is apt to reproduce the reliefs sought by the appellant-writ petitioner in OA No. 1287 of 1998, which was transferred to this Court and came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 5163 of 2008, herein:

“(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularise the services of the applicant w.e.f. due date i.e. the year 1996 with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to release the running pay scale to the applicant from 5.9.89 to 31.12.1995 and the arrears of payment be released with interest.

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the applicant for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

(iv) Any other order/relief to which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

3. It would be profitable to record herein that the appellant-writ petitioner had already approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) by the medium of OA No. 143 of 1991, which was decided by the learned Tribunal on 3rd December, 1996, and the following order came to be passed:

“The original record produced by the learned Additional Advocate General which shows that the applicant has completed 10 years service on December 31, 1995 as Pump Operator. From 1996 his case will be considered for regularisation. He further submits that none of the applicant's junior has been regularised. In these circumstances no other and further order needs be passed. The application is finally disposed of in above referred to terms.”

4. The grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner as on 3rd December, 1996, stands clinched by the said order, dated 3rd December, 1996.

5. The appellant-writ petitioner cannot claim any relief, which he has not prayed in that lis or which had accrued to him or was available and, if prayed, was not granted, in view of the mandate of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”), particularly, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC read with Section 11 CPC.

6. The question is – whether the appellant-writ petitioner has sought for any relief which has accrued to him in terms of the order, dated 3rd December, 1996? No such relief has been sought for.

7. Having said so, the Writ Court has rightly made the impugned judgment, needs no interference.

8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.