Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of Certiorari for the reasons as stated therein.) With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Ku.AaNo.1546/Vu.Ni.A/Ni.Pi.1/Vu.3/2002-9 dated 25.5.2004 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same. 3. The writ petitioner, who was working as a contract labour under the second respondent, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the first respondent imposing the punishment of reduction of his pay to the minimum of the time scale of pay of the post, for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the recommendations made by the Justice Khalid Committee. The said Committee, on a direction from the Supreme Court, went into the question of employment of contract labour by the respondent Electricity Board. When the Electricity Board wanted to fill up the post by direct recruitment and prescribed minimum educational qualification, the contract labours who are engaged by the Board, questioned the same and contended before Justice Khalid Committee that their experience gained over the years will be equivalent to the educational qualification and, therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed. Having regarding to the fact that they have been working for a long number of years, Justice Khalid recommended their absorption in a phased manner and his report was also upheld by the Supreme court. Having got the benefit of regularisation, the petitioner at the time of joining the Board's service, produced bogus educational Certificate and the Board took action against him by a memo dated 14.5.2001. In the meanwhile, some similarly placed persons moved this Court against the disciplinary action and a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2002 in Writ Appeal being W.A.No. 2454 of 2002 and batch cases, approved the Board Proceedings, which was issued on the suggestion of this Court and directed the Board to impose punishment in terms of the Board Proceedings (B.P. (FB) No.27 dated 07.11.2002). He filed writ petition being W.P.No.3886 of 2003, which was disposed of on 07.02.2003. He filed writ petition being W.P.No.3886 of 2003, which was disposed of on 07.02.2003. In that writ petition, the Board was directed to dispose of the petitioner's case in terms of B.P.(FB) No.27 dated 07.11.2002. Along with a copy of the order, the petitioner sent a representation dated 22.12.2003 and requested the Board to pass orders in terms of the Board Proceedings. Accordingly, the Board gave a show cause notice and after hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order imposing the punishment as stated already. 4. I have heard Mr.V.Illanchezian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Yamuna Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board and have perused the records. 5. It is unthinkable as to how the petitioner could file once again a writ petition challenging the order, which was made pursuant to his request. It is a clear case where the petitioner, having availed the benefit in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.12.2002, got reinstated in service after giving an undertaking in terms of the board proceedings, has the audacity to file another writ petition without any legal basis. The earlier order passed by the Division Bench completely covers the present issue and operates as res judicata against the petitioner. There are no legal grounds open to the petitioner to agitate an issue which has already been squarely covered by the discretionary order passed by this court. 6. In similar circumstances, this Court dismissed the writ petition in W.P.No.34793 of 2006 [D.Valli vs. The Additional Chief Enginer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai and another] by order dated 21.9.2006 and also imposed cost on the petitioner. The reasoning given in the said order squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and the same shall stand dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.25263 of 2004 also stands dismissed. However, since the petitioner has disclosed the order of the Division Bench of this Court, no cost is imposed on him. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs.