A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) AN amendment application has been filed belatedly after this Court detected that earlier Writ petition No. 42007 of 1996 with identical facts and similar relief was filed as already noted by this Court in its order dated 14-10-99. ( 2 ) IN the interest of justice, I allow this application. The proposed amended reliefs shall be read in the writ petition (which may be incorporated by the office in due course ). I do not propose to adjourn the case on this score. ( 3 ) AMENDMENT of reliefs, as prayed in the amendment application No. 88560 of 1999, will have no consequence otherwise on the final result of the case. ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition (dated 16-12-97) the petitioner has sought two reliefs (A)Regularisation (P) Payment on the basis of minimum of the regular pay scale prescribed for similar regular employee (identically situated as the petitioner) while working as daily wager in the Deptt. of Forest. U. P. : ( 5 ) THE first prayer in this writ petition reads : " (I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner to be a regular employee of Class III/tv in the service of the State government from the date of his initial appointment i. e. May, 1987 on the post held by him in the Forest Department. " Similar relief was claimed by this petitioner in earlier writ petition No. 42007 of 1996 (see prayer No. I of this petition ). ( 6 ) ANOTHER prayer of the present writ petition reads : " (II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of difference of back wages to the petitioner which he would have received had he been treated to be the regular employee of the State Government in Class III/iv group c. " Identical relief has been claimed (vide prayer II) in Writ Petition No. 42007 of 1966. ( 7 ) EARLIER Writ Petition No. 42007/96 has been finally decided on 10-12-1997 by the Division bench of this Court (Honble D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. and Honble R. A. Sharma, J.) alongwith leading case (Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995, State of U. P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal, reported in 1998 (I) Alld. ( 7 ) EARLIER Writ Petition No. 42007/96 has been finally decided on 10-12-1997 by the Division bench of this Court (Honble D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. and Honble R. A. Sharma, J.) alongwith leading case (Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995, State of U. P. and Ors. v. Putti Lal, reported in 1998 (I) Alld. Civil Journal 251 (D. B), i. e. before filing of the present Petition No. 36 of 1998. ( 8 ) PERSUAL of this judgment shows that similar reliefs on the identical facts as claimed in the present petition, were claimed. Division Bench of this Court had already adjudicated these very issues, namely question of regularisation and payment of minimum of regular pay scale. ( 16 ) THE petitioner having invited Division Bench Judgment (supra), of this Court he could not be permitted to reagitate the same issues by filing fresh petitions. If the petitioner had some grievance for non-compliance of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 42007/97 he should have filed a contempt petition or taken recourse to such measures as may be advised to the petitioner or filed a claim petition under U. P. Public Service Tribunal Act. ( 17 ) I have perused the Vakalatnama of the petitioner in both the writ petitions. From bare naked eyes it is evident that atleast one of the Vakalatnama is farzi. The signatures on Vakalatnama in the two cases are different and written with different flavour and spellings. Even the age, shown in two writ petitions is conflicting. ( 18 ) THE petitioner who has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking benefit for service in the Government Department is not expected to behave in this fashion. I find that this writ petition is not maintainable and is nothing but gross abuse of the process of the Court. Otherwise also the petitioner has disentitled himself from seeking relief from this Court under its discretionary and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India as he has not approached this Court with clean hands, as held by this Court in AIR 1961, Allahabad 746 (Full Bench), 1996 (3) SCC 332 , 1996 (9) SCC 534 and 1999 AWC 100 (Supreme Court ). ( 19 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 5,000 as costs to be appropriated and deposited as follows. Rs. ( 19 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with Rs. 5,000 as costs to be appropriated and deposited as follows. Rs. 2500 to be paid within one month to the respondents, who shall be otherwise entitled to recover from the petitioner, if he fails to pay as above. Rest Rs. 2500 to be deposited within one month from today with the Registrar of this Court and when deposited, the same shall be remitted forthwith to the State Legal Authority. If costs are not deposited as above, the State Legal Authority may take steps for recovery as land revenue through the District magistrate. ( 20 ) INTERIM Order/s, if any, stand discharged. .