Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This case is a straight example of the skill of the administrative authorities in twisting the facts and to make this Court and its judgments a tool to accomplish their vicious objectives and goal.

2. Apparently the prayer made by the petitioner is a simple one, i.e., a mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to pay the entire arrears of salary to the petitioner as earlier as possible. The writ petition has eleven paragraphs and five grounds.

3. In nutshell, salary has been claimed for the period of 27.6.2006 to 14.8.2008. However going a little bit deeper one would find the reason for non-payment of salary for the aforesaid period. It appears that the petitioner was working as an Attendent at District Women Hospital, Etawah. Wherefrom she was shifted in the same city to District Hospital vide transfer order dated 27.6.2006 passed by Sri M.P. Bansal, Director (Medical Care). The petitioner did not join at the place of transfer and continue to mark her attendance at District Women Hospital, Etawah which was objected by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Joint Hospital (Women), Etawah. The petitioner was directed to submit her joining at District Women Hospital, Etawah.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the Writ Petition No. 1477 1 of 2007 seeking following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 1.12.2007 passed/issued by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition).

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner to join at the transferred place.

iii. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. to award the cost of the petition.”

5. The writ petition came up before this Court on 20.3.2007 when it was dismissed with the following order:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

By means of the impugned order dated 1.12.2006 the compliance of the transfer order passed against the petitioner on 3.11.2006 is being sought.

The petitioner has not filed the original transfer order. In my view, in the absence of the transfer order having been filed, the order impugned in this writ petition i.e. dated 1.12.2006 cannot be interfered with.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the main order of transfer.

No costs.”

6. Thereafter she again came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 17680 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/- observing that it was an abuse of the process of the Court. The judgment dated 7.5.2008 of this Court dismissing the aforesaid writ petition reads as under:

“After the matter was argued at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with an undertaking that he will deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on his own, inasmuch as the Court was of the prima facie opinion that at the initial stage itself the present writ petition was an abuse of the process of this Court. However, no orders are required to be passed in view of the said statement.

In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The cost so imposed must be deposited by the petitioner through a bank draft drawn in favour of Registrar General of this Court within one month from today, failing which the District Magistrate concerned shall ensure recovery of the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- as arrears of land revenue and shall transmit the money so collected to the Registrar General. The cost so recovered shall be placed in the accounts of High Court Legal Serv