Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed by Mr.M.Ananda Raj under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.1, Central Public Information Officer, RTI Act, 2005, Chennai, Regional Meteorological Centre representing India Meteorological Department to pay compensation as per Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 in lieu of reinstatement, loss and other detriments suffered by the petitioner and to equate the retrospective reinstatement benefits with 12% interest till the date of settlement and the subsequent pension and other benefits calculated from the date of the above settlement. 2. Mr.M.Ananda Raj, the petitioner appearing in person, submitted that when he was serving as Observer in the Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai from 24.10.59, he was promoted as Senior Observer on 9.3.64 and retained in the same place. He was also allotted official quarters in the office compound of Regional Meteorological Centre, Nungambakkam from 2.7.67 onwards. Subsequently, the department passed an administrative order of transfer on 20.7.68 along with another officer Mr.R.Ramadoss. That order was passed by the Director based on a complaint made by Mr.A.V.Santhanam, Scientific Assistant to the Assistant Meteorologist (Administration) alleging that the petitioner misbehaved with one married sister of Mr.N.R.Subramanian, Observer residing as his neighbour in the departmental quarters on 12.6.68, hence, after conducting enquiry on the said allegation, the Director of Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai, finding some substance in the allegation, decided to transfer both the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Subramanian out of Chennai in order to avoid the incidents of this type and to ensure an amiable atmosphere in the residential area. Even prior to that, the petitioner requested the Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai on 21.5.68 seeking permission to join the evening college to prosecute higher studies for B.A., and such permission was also granted on 14.6.68. But for the reason that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent in disobedience to the order of transfer, departmental action was initiated against him on 20.11.68 and finally the Assistant Meteorologist (Administration), Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai, who is the competent authority, passed an order of punishment dated 28.11.68 imposing a minor punishment of withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Subsequently, the petitioner, having continued to remain absent from duty unauthorisedly in violation of the office order, despite the fact that minor penalty was imposed on him as per the rules, the Regional Director, Chennai was left with no other option except to initiate major disciplinary proceedings against him in June, 1969 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Later on, the disciplinary authority completed the disciplinary proceedings and reached a conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service, on that basis, issued a show cause notice dated 6.9.69 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service should not be imposed on him. After his explanation, finally, the punishment of removal from service with effect from 1.11.69 was imposed. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal to the Director General of Observatories on 5.11.69 against the order of removal from service. 3. But his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3994 of 1970 challenging the order of removal from service and the same was also dismissed by order dated 23.11.70. As against that, he filed unsuccessfully Writ Appeal No.31 of 1972 and the same also followed suit by order dated 5.10.72. Under this background, the petitioner had come to this Court on an earlier occasion also by filing Writ Petition No.1747 of 2010 seeking a prayer for payment of compensation as per Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the loss and other detriment suffered by him to equate the date of settlement and subsequent pension and other benefits till his lifetime after the settlement. This Court, taking note of the fact that he was a retired employee of the Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai under the India Meteorological Department, thinking that the petitioner had sought for compensation relating to his service benefits, directed the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, as the said department is covered by the Administrative Tribunals Act. By virtue of the order, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1220 of 2010 and by order dated 10.1.2012 the said original application was also dismissed assigning sufficient reasons, stating that the petitioner in the entire O.A., had never challenged any departmental order with regard to his service matters like transfer, removal, termination or pensionary benefits. By virtue of the order, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1220 of 2010 and by order dated 10.1.2012 the said original application was also dismissed assigning sufficient reasons, stating that the petitioner in the entire O.A., had never challenged any departmental order with regard to his service matters like transfer, removal, termination or pensionary benefits. On that basis it was further held that his prayer being only seeking compensation, which was not under the purview or jurisdiction of the CAT, was not maintainable before the Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner has again come back to this Court as party in person. 4. Mr.M.Ananda Raj submitted that he has been wrongly, arbitrarily and unlawfully deprived of his employment by imposing the wrong punishment of removal from service with effect from 1.11.69, as a result, the petitioner was unable to continue in service and it has caused great financial loss and mental agony not only to the petitioner but also to his family members. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the compensation. On this count, when the petitioner made an application on 11.9.2006 to the Assistant Public Information Officer (Assistant Meteorologist Grade-I), Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai for furnishing of copies of transactions related to the Regional Meteorological Centre, some of the information were not given, although some information was given to him by the Public Information Officer. The petitioner again represented to the appellate authority under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking more information/documents. It is stated that the appellate authority also informed the petitioner that all the information available with the Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai were provided to him. In view of that, the petitioner made an appeal on 30.7.2007 to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, by forwarding a copy to the Central Public Information Officer, Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai and the appellate authority, India Meteorological Department, New Delhi, for not getting sufficient information. 5. The petitioner, as mentioned above, had come to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1747 of 2010. 5. The petitioner, as mentioned above, had come to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1747 of 2010. When this Court had already directed the petitioner to approach the other forum, may be under the impression that the petitioner being a central government employee had to redress his grievance relating to his service conditions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal, after finding that there was no case made out with regard to the service conditions, he has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. During the course of arguments, the petitioner stated that even before the order of removal from service with effect from 1.11.69 was imposed, he pleaded that he was transferred by the higher officer for no reason under the guise of public interest. He further stated that the chain of events would amply show that the petitioner has been targeted, therefore, he is entitled to get sufficient compensation for the wrong imposition of punishment of removal from service. Had he not suffered the punishment of removal from service, he would have continued in service by receiving the monthly salary along with other perks and after retirement, he would have received the pension and other benefits as well. 7. This Court is at a loss to find any justification whatsoever for the petitioner to approach this Court repeatedly. In fact when the petitioner was directed to face the departmental proceedings for his unauthorised absence from duty, the enquiry officer found him guilty, with the result he was issued with a show cause notice to submit his explanation as to why he should not be awarded the punishment of removal from service and finally, after submitting his explanation, the disciplinary authority, by taking into account the earlier punishment dated 28.11.68 imposing a minor penalty of withholding of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect for the same misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty, in disobedience to the order of transfer, finally found him totally unsuitable to the said post and thereupon thought it fit to impose the major penalty of removal from service with effect from 1.11.69. As against that, the petitioner also preferred an appeal to the Director General of Observatories on 5.11.69. As against that, the petitioner also preferred an appeal to the Director General of Observatories on 5.11.69. When the same was under consideration, the petitioner started bringing more pressure by a Member of Parliament to meet the Director General of Observatories at New Delhi on 1.12.69 and finally the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3994 of 1970 before this Court challenging the correctness of the order of removal from service and this Court, finding no merits whatsoever in the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition on 23.11.70. As against that, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.31 of 1972 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 5.10.72. When the petitioner had already challenged the order of removal unsuccessfully, this Court finds no justification whatsoever for him to come to this Court repeatedly by taking frivolous grounds and wasting the precious time of the Court. When the order of removal from service imposed against him way back on 1.11.69 has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3994 of 1970 by order dated 23.11.70 and in Writ Appeal No.31 of 1972 by order dated 5.10.72, it is alarming for this Court to see the prayer made by the petitioner seeking compensation. In view of that, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. However, the conduct of the petitioner for approaching this Court repeatedly without any justification whatsoever demanding compensation in lieu of reinstatement has to be taken into account. As mentioned above, the punishment of removal inflicted against the petitioner was upheld by this Court in both the writ petition and writ appeal. Therefore, repeatedly coming to this Court seeking retrospective reinstatement benefit with 12 percent interest till the date of settlement and pension is not only unsustainable in law, but also a mere wastage of the precious time of the Court, therefore, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.10,000/-on the petitioner, which shall be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. No costs.