The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of delay and laches in filing the writ petition, and the entitlement to seek remedies for claims not dependent on the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3845 of 2018 dated 28.05.2019.

2. This case has had a chequered history. The appellant herein had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.402 of 2016 questioning, among others, the order dated 26.07.2007, passed by the Principal of the College, deducting one day's salary of the appellant-writ petitioner on the ground that he was absent from duty at the college on 02.07.2007 without prior permission and without submitting an application for sanction of leave.

3. The appellant-writ petitioner had filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.402 of 2016 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.07.2007 whereby an entry of non-payment of one day's salary was made in his service book'; for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the overdue claims from the date when the same fell due, and to pay him arrears by amending the seniority list; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate and pay him the overdue claims, from the date when the same fell due, as arrears along with interest thereon.

4. In his order in Writ Petition (S/S) No.402 of 2016 dated 29.02.2016, the learned Single Judge non-suited the appellant-writ petitioner holding that the challenge to the order dated 26.07.2007, whereby an entry was made in his service book of his having been deducted one day's salary for abstaining from duty without application for leave or without leave being sanctioned, was unduly belated and suffered from laches. While he did not examine the appellant-writ petitioner's claim for payment of overdue salary, and other overdue claims, the learned Single Judge held that the Writ Petition was highly belated, and no reasonable explanation was submitted for the long delay in filing the Writ Petition questioning the order dated 26.07.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioner preferred Special Appeal No.286 of 2018 and, in its order dated 18.07.2018, a Division Bench of this Court held that the challenge to the impugned order dated 26.07.2007 was highly belated. While expressing its disinclination to interfere with the order under appeal, the Division Bench made it clear that, in case the appellant-writ petitioner was deprived of any other benefits which was otherwise due to him in law and which did not depend upon the impugned order, it was open to him to work out his remedies before the competent Court.

5. The appellant-writ petitioner again filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.3845 of 2018 seeking the very same reliefs which he had sought in the earlier Writ Petition. By the order under appeal, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3845 of 2018 dated 28.05.2019, the learned Single Judge held that filing of a second Writ Petition, for the very same cause of action, was an abuse of the process of law; the order of the Division Bench only meant dues which were payable to the appellant-writ petitioner after the decision was rendered in Special Appeal No.286 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018, and not dues prior thereto; and, since the appellant-writ petitioner did not come with clean hands, he was not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge further held that the order of the Division Bench, leaving it open to the appellant-writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, would necessitate the inference that a subsequent Writ Petition, for the same cause of action, is not maintainable; and, since this contention could not be accepted, the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed.

6. While dismissing Writ Petition (S/S) No.402 of 2016 by his order dated 29.02.2016 on the ground of delay and laches, the learned Single Judge had merely examined the appellant-writ petitioner's challenge to the order dated 26.07.2007, and not with respect to any of the other reliefs he had sought for in the Writ Petition. While affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, th