JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Heard Sri Divyanshu Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

2. This intra Court appeal arises against judgment and order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 34236 (SS) of 2018, Shanvan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, whereby learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable taking into consideration principles of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata enshrined in Order II, Rule 2 C.P.C.

3. The appellant/petitioner was an employee of the Institute of Tool Room Training U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ITTUP) who retired on 30.4.2011. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 375 of 1985, Shanvan Kumar v. Institute of Tool Room Training, U.P. and others before this Court praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 not to make any hostile discrimination between the petitioner and the opposite parties No. 4 to 6 regarding grant of annual increments in the wage revision.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to grant petitioner also at least five annual increments.

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) award costs of this petition to the petitioner."

4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner and when the representation of the petitioner was rejected, he filed Writ Petition No. 9651 of 1988, Shanvan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed vide judgment and order of this Court dated 27.7.1999. Against the judgment and order dated 27.7.1999 the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 354 of 1999, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2008. Against judgment and order dated 21.8.2008, Civil Appeal No. 8902 of 2010 In re: Sharwan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others was filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the following order was passed:

"This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 354 (SB) of 1999.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the salary of the appellant was with-held for about 10 years and it was released only after the contempt petition was filed, that too, without giving any increment and revision of pay. The respondents are directed to took into the matter and see that if the salary was not paid, as per the revised pay scale and increments have not been given, the same shall be calculated and released in favour of the appellant within a period of two months from today."

5. Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.7.2015 while dismissing the Civil Appeal directed the respondents to look into the matter and see if the salary has not been paid as per revised pay scale and increments have not been given, the same shall be calculated and released in favour of the appellant within a period of two months. Since the judgement and order dated 29.7.2015 was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition (C) No. III of 2016, Sharwan Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta and others before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2017. Relevant portion of order dated 27.11.2017 is reproduced as under:

"We have seen the reply filed by the respondent No. 3.

We are satisfied that the order has been substantially complied with. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved