Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This is second round of writ petition filed by the same petitioner challenging the selfsame transfer order passed by the appropriate Authority, which was assailed in the first petition, being CWP No. 2524 of 2013, decided on 29th April, 2013. In the first petition, the petitioner chose to argue only one point, namely, that the petitioner suffers from medical problems of diabetes and hypertension. No other ground was agitated. In the light of the said contention, the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 29th April, 2013, disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the appropriate Authority concerning his medical problems. The petitioner, accordingly, made representation, which has been considered by the appropriate Authority and rejected by a speaking order, dated 7th June, 2013, Annexure P10. The appropriate Authority has found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the ground of medical problem, as a result, transfer order, dated 23rd March, 2013, will have to be given effect to. 3. In the present petition, feeble attempt has been made by the petitioner to urge additional grounds. That, however, cannot be permitted and, therefore, we decline to entertain any new ground by way of the successive writ petition challenging the selfsame transfer order. For, the petitioner has acquiesced of those grounds which were available to him and could be argued in the first writ petition itself. 4. As regards the issue regarding medical problem, we see no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the appropriate Authority in the reasoned order, dated 7th June, 2013, Annexure P10. The argument of the petitioner is that the appropriate Authority committed manifest error in proceeding on the basis that the petitioner failed to produce the medical certificates and medicine bills, when, in fact, the petitioner was subscribing to monthly fixed medical allowance scheme, which did not require producing medicine bills. We are not impressed by this argument. Even if the petitioner may be subscribing to fixed medical allowance facility that would not absolve the petitioner to produce the medical papers/ bills when he wanted to press into service ground of medical problem to resist the order of transfer passed against him. The two are independent matters. We are not impressed by this argument. Even if the petitioner may be subscribing to fixed medical allowance facility that would not absolve the petitioner to produce the medical papers/ bills when he wanted to press into service ground of medical problem to resist the order of transfer passed against him. The two are independent matters. For, one pertains to the facility available generally to every employee and the other is specific issue raised by the petitioner to resist the transfer order. 5. In our opinion, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in the fact situation of the present case. As a matter of fact, only yesterday we had occasion to consider somewhat similar arguments in CWP No. 4752 of 2013F, decided on 3rd July, 2013, in Parveen Kumar versus State of H.P. & another. However, as noted earlier, we have not permitted the petitioner to urge those grounds in the present petition for the reasons already recorded. 6. Petition dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.