JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner, a teacher of Gadapadanpur, M.E. School located at village Gadapadanpur in the district of Puri, has tiled this writ application for a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to grant him the residuary benefits flowing from the decision dated 31-12-1977 of the State Education Tribuna], Orissa, in Appeal No: 30 of 1977. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in Gadapadanpur M.E. School on 14-4-1970. He was relieved from the post in August. 1975 to enable him to undergo C.T. training. Upon completion of the course, he reported to. the Secretary on 1-4-1977 with a view to rejoining his post. Something happened and he was not taken in. He moved the State Education Tribunal and by judgment dated 31-12-1977 in Appeal No. 30 of 1977 the Tribunal upheld his plea an d held that the Petitioner would be treated as on duty since 2-4-1977 and would continue as a teacher till his service was terminated in accordance with law. Despite the judgment, he was not taken back though he pleaded before Secretary of the School for resumption of duty on various occasions. He then moved this Court for a mandamus in O.J.C. No. 1251 of 978. He has averred that the Secretary informed him that the Managing Committee has decided that be would be taken back if he withdrew the writ application. He advised his counsel to file a memorandum and the writ application was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 28.9-1983. The Petitioner had in the mean while been allowed to resume his duty on 20-4-1983. He was not, however, paid the pecuniary benefits consequential to the decision of the Education Tribunal, i.e., his remuneration for the period during which he was kept out by the Managing Committee from service, i.e., from 2-4-1977 when he reported upon completion of training to resume duty till 20.4-1983 when he was taken back, On the contrary, the Managing Committee decided against payment of his entitlements. The Petitioner has filed this writ application for It mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to satisfy the other reliefs to which he was entitled under the decision of the State Education Tribunal. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 4 in their return have not disputed the basic facts. The Petitioner has filed this writ application for It mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to satisfy the other reliefs to which he was entitled under the decision of the State Education Tribunal. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 4 in their return have not disputed the basic facts. They have made some allegations against the Petitioner which we do not take note of as we consider the same to be irrelevant for our purpose. It is not disputed that the decision between the Petitioner and opposite party No. 1 has become final. Under the judgment, the Petitioner was entitled to resume his duty and to the financial benefits consequential to the decision. Though the Tribunal rendered is judgment on 31-12-1977. he was taken back only on 20-4-1983 after he had moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 1251 of 1978 and during the period of five years approximately when the writ application was pending in this Court, no step was taken to take him back. The Managing Committee had not obtained any order from any authority staying the operation of the decision of the Tribunal. Having decided not to challenge, it was obliged to implement the judgment forthwith. Withdrawal of the writ application would not be a condition precedent to the resumption of the duty of the Petitioner. Nevertheless resolution was passed by the Managing Committee that he would be allowed to resume his duty on his withdrawal of the writ application. The Petitioner filed the petition on 19-9-1983 as per Annexure-6. He has filed the statement of the Secretary of the school dated 20-4-1983 to the effect that the Petitioner was allowed to resume his duty as he had filed an affidavit stating that he. would withdraw the writ application. 4. The two objections raised by opposite parties i and 4 are that the writ application was not maintainable in view of the withdrawal of the previous writ application (O.J.C. 1251/78) and secondly enforcement of monetary claim was not the proper subject matter of the writ Court. 5. As regards the first no doubt, as a matter of public policy, the litigant should not be allowed to file a fresh writ application in respect of the same cause of action if he had withdrawn a writ application filed by him earlier. 5. As regards the first no doubt, as a matter of public policy, the litigant should not be allowed to file a fresh writ application in respect of the same cause of action if he had withdrawn a writ application filed by him earlier. This principle, embodied in Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC has been extended to writ petitions see Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others This is however, a rule of procedure, all procedures being hand-maid of justice. Where, however, a party has been deluded to adopt a course of withdrawing his writ petition on an assurance that he would be granted the relief sought by him and his grievances would be alleviated, the technical plea of bar would not apply where the promissor resiles from or fails to carry out the promise. The Managing Committee had not taken a decision in 1983 that the Petitioner would be allowed to join only but would not be paid his salary for the period during which he was kept out. In good faith the Petitioner would have concluded that the Managing Committee had finally decided to implement the decision of the State Education Tribunal and-in that faith he withdrew his writ application. There is nothing in the resolution of the Managing Committee nor in the statement of the Secretary that the Petitioner would not be granted the financial benefits. Entitlement of the Petitioner to the financial benefits was consequential and was of right. That was nota discretionary matter. The opposite parties could not have in law denied him the said benefits. In our view, therefore, rigour of the principle embodied in Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of CPC has no application to the facts of the present case and we negative the objection. 6. As regards the plea that the Petitioner cannot enforce a monetary claim invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, we may observe that exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction is a matter under the discretion M this Court. Application of the principle would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. As regards the plea that the Petitioner cannot enforce a monetary claim invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, we may observe that exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction is a matter under the discretion M this Court. Application of the principle would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. To deny the Petitioner the relief to which he was entitled in 1977 and which ought to have been granted in 1983 when the Managing Committee permitted him to resume duty, on this technical ground would be travesty of justice and it is a fit case where we should exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction despite the fact that the claim relates to financial benefits. 7. Both the objections having been overruled, the, Petitioner must succeed and we direct accordingly. Steps shall be taken by the Managing Committee for payment of salary to the Petitioner for the period from 2-4-1977 till 20-4-1983 within one month from today and payment shall be made by opposite parties 2 and 3 within three months thereafter, i.e., within four months from today. The writ application is, accordingly allowed. Let an appropriate mandamus issue. There would be no order as to costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed