JUDGMENT 1. - An application has been moved to substitute respondent No. 1 & 2 1 with its successor Corporation and its officers. Accordingly, the application is allowed The name of R.S.E B. which has been abolished and succeeded by a new company is deleted and in its place, the newly created its successor Corporation be substituted. Amended cause title has been field by the 5 learned counsel for the appellant which may be taken on record. 2. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.9.2002 which reads as under "Learned counsel for the respondents has delivered a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 1,505/- being the amount of difference of emoluments for the period 3.4.1969 to 3 5.1971 as undertaken on the last date being 29.8.2002." On perusal of the entire writ petition, rather a proper comprehension thereof, it transpires that this only was the grievance of the petitioner sought to be ventilated in the present writ petition. The writ petition. therefore, no more survives and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. 3. Learned counsel contends that the petition was not confined to the ground of relief for notional benefits, but it was also with respect of future promotions, when person junior to him were considered for promotion after he was promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 3.4.1969 to higher posts by ignoring his case for promotion. 4. A perusal of the writ petition as a whole discloses that the grievance, which now the petitioner/appellant wants to raise, was not at all subject-matter of the writ petition. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition was as under : "(I) the impugned order dated 25.2.1994 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it mentions that petitioner is entitled for the notional benefits w.e.f. 4.4.1969 to 3.5.1971 for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). (II) the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner as having been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (civil) w.e.f. 3.4.1969 and he may be granted all the benefits pertaining seniority, promotion, pay fixation gratuity etc. from the said date. (II) the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner as having been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (civil) w.e.f. 3.4.1969 and he may be granted all the benefits pertaining seniority, promotion, pay fixation gratuity etc. from the said date. (Ill) that the suo motu imposed rider 'notional benefits from 4.4.1969 to 3.5.1971 as exists in order Annexure-4 may be declared arbitrary and illegal and may be struck down and petitioner may be given all the benefits on account of such removal." 5. The back ground of this case is that by order dated 1.4.1969, the Board has a,)proved/regularized the promotion of S.K. Durgiya, Assistant Engineer 40 who as been promoted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) for a period from 3.4.1969 to 3.5.1971. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed S B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1214/71 principally on the ground that S.K. Durgiva could not have been promoted on regular basis prior to the petitioner. The said writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 15.4.1976 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition) and the following directions were issued in the said petition : "I set aside the Board's order dated 6.7.1972 approving/regularizing the promotion of Shn S.K. Durgiya Assistant Engineer (Civil) promoted on ad hoc basis by the order dated 3.4.1969 and hereby direct that the Selection Committee will consider the case of the petitioner along with that of Shri G.K. Durgiya of any other persons if any eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) equally situated with the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and thereafter pass fresh order regarding approval/regularisation of the promotion of such eligible candidates. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above." 6. In pursuance thereof, ultimately the order Annex. 4 was passed. It appears that the said order was not complied with for a long period and the 15 petitioner has to file a Contempt Petition No. 114/94 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2474/91 which was decided vide order dated 15.7.1996 by issuing direction to the Board for complying with the directions passed in the earlier petition within three months. 7. This led to making of the order dated 25.2.1994 promoting the petitioner as well as S.K. Durgiya with effect from 3.4.1969. However, the following rider was made in respect of the petitioner in the order dated 25.2.1994. 7. This led to making of the order dated 25.2.1994 promoting the petitioner as well as S.K. Durgiya with effect from 3.4.1969. However, the following rider was made in respect of the petitioner in the order dated 25.2.1994. "Since Shri G.L. Vyas has actually not worked as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 3.4.1996 to 3.5.1971, he is allowed notional promotion from 3,4.1969." 8. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was originally given promotion w.e.f. 3.5.1971 to the post of Assistance Engineer. It is in this background, the writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed in 1997 for claiming actual benefits w.e.f. 3.4.1969 to 3.5.1971. 9. In the entire body of writ petition, there is no reference to subsequent 30 promotion of any person junior.to the petitioner to higher posts. No relief in that regard has specifically been claimed. His primary grievance was only with respect to not allowing the emoluments from 3.4.1969 to 3.5.1971 by putting rider under the order dated 25.2.1994. While making prayer in clause (ii), a direction was sought for treating the petitioner to be promoted with effect from 3.4.1969 and that he may be granted all the benefits pertaining to seniority, promotion, pay fixation from the said date. No specific facts or specific relief finds place in the body of the writ petition which can detail the relief claimed in the writ petition. 10. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that when payment of the 40 said amount for actual promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 4.4.1969 to 3.5.1971 was denied to the petitioner and the promotion having already been made with effect from 4.4.1969 and there being no allegations about other consequential benefits not given to the petitioner, there was no issue joined before the learned Single Judge to further enquiry in the matter. 11. It is for the first time in appeal that the petitioner has sought to raise new grounds for seeking new reliefs by filing amended writ petition. However, the amendment application was never allowed by the Court. Apparently, the petitioner is seeking to introduce new cause of action by pleading new facts by making reference to one Shri K.K. Kapoor, Who according to the petitioner so has been given accelerated promotion though he was junior to him. However, the amendment application was never allowed by the Court. Apparently, the petitioner is seeking to introduce new cause of action by pleading new facts by making reference to one Shri K.K. Kapoor, Who according to the petitioner so has been given accelerated promotion though he was junior to him. Apparently this amounts to introducing a new cause of action and completely altering the nature of the case which was originally put-forth in the writ petition at this stage which cannot be permitted. In fact, the facts in amended application filed in appeal founded a different cause of action about future promotions and can be subject matter of a separate lis. 12. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissedAppeal Dismissed. *******