JUDGMENT : - Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-9-1993 an 16-10-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 an 2. THE Regional Manager Punjab National Bank, Varanasi and Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Ghazipur respectively. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-Cum-Godown Keeper on 31-7-1971 in the Punjab National Bank. The terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Bank are governed by Bipartite settlement. The first settlement between the Bank and the employees came in force on 19th October, 1966. Subsequently it has been amended from time to time in 1979, 1984, 1988 and 1989. 3. UNDER the Bipartite settlement there is special provisions for the payment of special allowances to various employees on the basis of nature of duties performed by them. The Regional Manager transferred the petitioner by order dated 27-11-1975 to the post of Agriculture Clerk to work under Agriculture Officer T. F. O. A in the Bank at Ghazipur. The duty alleged to have been performed by him as Agriculture Clerk is of advancement of the loan in I. D. A. (International Development Agency) project. He contends that under the second Bipartite settlement he was entitled to get the special allowance of Rs. 75 per month which was increased to Rs. 121 per month subsequently which has not bee paid to him. 4. AGGRIEVED by non-payment of the special allowance the petitioner moved a representation which was rejected vide order 25-2-1992 passed by Respondent No. 1, as communicated vide order dated 27-6- 1992 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed writ petition No. nil of 1992 before this Court which was dismissed by following order: "heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that by virtue of the appointment, the petitioner is entitled to special allowance but his representation in that regard has been rejected. If the petitioner is so advised, he may make further representation to higher authority but no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for, consequently writ petition is dismissed. Sri K. L. Grover, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Sd-B. N. L. , J. Sd-V. B. , J. 30-9-1992" The petitioner served a fresh representation dated 20-10-1992 along with an order-dated 30-9-1992 to the General Manager New Delhi (Head Office) and subsequently sent a reminder dated 16-6-1993. Sri K. L. Grover, Advocate appeared for the respondent. Sd-B. N. L. , J. Sd-V. B. , J. 30-9-1992" The petitioner served a fresh representation dated 20-10-1992 along with an order-dated 30-9-1992 to the General Manager New Delhi (Head Office) and subsequently sent a reminder dated 16-6-1993. Pursuant to the aforesaid representation the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 17-8-1993 and subsequently by order dated 24-9-1993 as communicated by order dated 16-10-1993 through the Branch Manager, Ghazipur it was disclosed that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 24- 9-1993 by holding that he is not entitled to payment of special allowance for the post of Agriculture Clerk which has been claimed by him. 5. SRI K. L. Grover, Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that a perusal of the order of this Court dated 30-9-1992 (Annexure-12) to the writ petition) shows that the Court had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner against rejection of the representation claiming special allowance. He further contends that no direction was given by this Court that the petitioner might seek any alternative remedy. He further submits that this Court had left it on the petitioner to make fresh representation if he so advised and the contention of the petitioner that he was direction to make a fresh representation is misconceived and ill founded. Lastly SRI Grover has contended that the earlier writ petition having been dismissed the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition as it has been filed for the same relief and in any case the principles of res-judicata are attracted in the circumstances of the case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment of this Court, which has been quoted above wherein it has been held that since the representation of the petitioner was rejected the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. For the reasons stated above the second writ petition for the same relief is also dismissed as not maintainable. Petition dismissed.