Judgment :- Writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse pension arrears, gratuity arrears, medical allowance and other allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petitioner's superannuation on 31.12.1991 and continue to pay his monthly pension. 2. Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for admission, on perusal of the pleadings, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what could be gathered is that the petitioner joined the respondent department in the year 1958 as Sales Assistant and subsequently got promoted as Manager and while he was functioning as Assistant Manager, Khadi Craft, Cuddalore, the District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Cuddalore by order dated 23.05.1974 had placed him under suspension, pending investigation and framing of the charges relating to irregularities; that in the enquiry, he was not given full opportunity to cross examine the witness; that in the conclusion of the charges framed against the petitioner except one charge was held proved and it was proposed to dismiss him from service and in fact by order dated 11.11.1976, the first respondent dismissed him from service of the respondent department. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he preferred an appeal before the second respondent herein and that was also dismissed; that he filed W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which also came to be dismissed and he preferred an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 1979 in which Division Bench of this Court as per its Judgment dated 05.11.1985, allowed the appeal quashed the order of dismissal and directed the respondents to pay all the attendant benefits arising there from further giving liberty to the respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh; that of much pursuance that the respondent reinstated him in service; that while disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent, the honourable Supreme Court directed the respondents to deposit the full amount of backwages payable to him, consequent to which the petitioner was permitted to withdraw one third of it by this Court. 4. 4. The petitioner would further submit that a fresh enquiry was commenced and final orders were passed on 22.09.1986 dismissing him from service; that an appeal preferred by him before the second respondent was also dismissed by an order dated 06.08.1990 and therefore, left with no option, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.17803 of 1991; that the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.12.1999 directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the recommendation of the first respondent relating to the disbursement of the monetary benefits within the prescribed time limit and as per the said order, a sum of Rs.1,48,840/- was paid on 11.02.2000 towards backwages and terminal benefits; that an application filed by him seeking clarification regarding the continuance of disbursement of his monthly pension, gratuity, medical allowance etc. in W.M.P.No.14955 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 16.10.2000; that an appeal filed in W.A.No.1078 of 2001 against the said order was also dismissed. Again and again repeating the same old story of the order of dismissal having been set aside by this Court in W.A.No.509 of 1979 and accusing that the first respondent refusing to disburse the backwages and stating that he filed a clarification petition in which the Division Bench order as on 30.06.1994 as "when the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstatement was directed, he must be deemed to have been on duty. Accordingly, he must be treated as in service from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement". Based on these, the petitioner stating that he is entitled to all terminal benefits as claimed in the writ petition would come forward to seek the relief extracted supra. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he got dismissed from service on enquiry as per the order of the first respondent dated 11.11.1976; that an appeal preferred also came to be dismissed, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which too came to be dismissed and an appeal preferred to this order in W.A.No.509 of 1979, the Division Bench of this Court is said to have been passed a Judgment dated 05.11.1985 allowing the appeal quashing the order of dismissal with certain directions giving opportunity to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry and to award punishment, if the charges are proved. 6. 6. Since the petitioner has not placed on record the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.1985, this Court is not in a position to know as to on what grounds and in what circumstances, the Division Bench arrived at such conclusions, so as to proceed further, since it is a crucial judgment said to have been passed in favour of the petitioner in the entire process of the disciplinary enquiry, but it is an admitted case of the petitioner, that the respondents were given opportunity to conduct a fresh enquiry and to award punishment, if the charges are proved. Consequent to which, a fresh enquiry was held and passed a final order dismissing the petitioner again from service on 22.09.1986; that an appeal preferred by the petitioner against this dismissal, having came to be dismissed on 06.08.1990, the petitioner is said to have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17803 of 1991, which too was dismissed and it is at this stage that a settlement is stated to have been arrived at and the writ petition would not supply anything about what was decided in the settlement regarding the dismissal order passed by the respondents dated 22.09.1986 and whether the petitioner was reinstated or what happened to those orders legally passed, but the petitioner would only be dealing with the disbursement of the monetary benefits and the payment of a sum of Rs.1,48,840/- on 11.02.2000 towards backwages and other terminal benefits and ultimately the petitioner stating that he was under the bonafide belief that the respondents would continue to disburse his monthly pension, gratuity, medical allowances etc., since they have not been referred to at the time of disposing of the said clarification petition filed in W.M.P.No.14955 of 2000 having came to be dismissed by an order dated 16.10.2000 and an appeal preferred against that order in W.A.N0.1078 of 2001 had came to be dismissed on ground that "the point which is not agitated cannot be raised as a ground to review the earlier order". 7. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner would again raking up the same old rejected plea not only in the writ petition, but also in the writ appeal mentioned above, has come forward to claim in this writ petition also without placing the full details regarding his claim and without stating anything regarding the ultimate dismissal order passed especially in view of the fact that a writ petition and the writ appeal filed against the said order have both been respectively dismissed. 8. While such being so, when the dismissal order had been confirmed on appeal also, what made the respondent authorities ultimately enter into compromise is neither revealed not able to be understood nor any material has been placed on record regarding the same. But so far as the clarification rendered by the Division Bench in its order dated 30.06.1994 made in C.M.P.No.3951 of 1994 is concerned, no where it could be seen that subsequent to the Division Bench Judgment made in W.A.No.509 of 1979 dated 05.11.1985 that an opportunity has been given to the respondents therein to initiate fresh enquiry. But a fresh enquiry had been held and ultimately the petitioner got dismissed from service from 22.09.1986 and the appeal preferred by him before the appellate authority had also been dismissed as per the appellate authority's order dated 06.08.1990 which had not at all been brought to the notice of the Division Bench while seeking clarification. 9. However, yet another single Judge and the Division Bench have dismissed the same plea of the petitioner, which he has repeated in this writ petition as it comes to be seen from the orders passed by the single Judge in W.P.No.15409 of 1998. 9. However, yet another single Judge and the Division Bench have dismissed the same plea of the petitioner, which he has repeated in this writ petition as it comes to be seen from the orders passed by the single Judge in W.P.No.15409 of 1998. Moreover, the clarification sought for in the order dated 09.12.1999 made by the single Judge in W.P.No.17803 of 1991 for one and the same purpose had also been dismissed by the Division Bench in its Judgment dated 03.07.2001 made in W.A.No.1078 of 2001 and therefore, the petitioner having lost all his opportunities since has come forward to file this writ petition also without any right or without any locus standi to file such a writ petition, unless liberty has been given by the Division Bench, which ultimately dealt with the subject and dismissed his plea as on 03.07.2001 (on reasons that the point which is not agitated cannot be raised as a ground to review the earlier order), filing such a writ petitions, agitating a non existent right is nothing short of an attempt to waste the precious time of the Court without any basic right or locus standi or valid reasons to offer as it has been admitted in this writ petition by the petitioner. In short the petitioner has claimed the relief without establishing his locus standi to agitate on writ petition after writ petition or his right to claim such relief simply forgotting the fact that this Court could only once exercise its discretionary jurisdiction on a subject and cannot deal with in piece meal on claims without a basis. In result, i) The above writ petition does not merit admission and is dismissed as such. ii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. iii) Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.35083 of 2002 is also dismissed.