JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order as contained in Ref. No. ECL/MC/Agt/12/776 dated 09.07.2012 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the claim for regularization as Store Keeper has been turned down by the competent authority. A further prayer has been made directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner from Time Rated Category to Monthly Rated Category as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a General Mazdoor/Store Boy in Time Rated Category at Kapasara Colliery in the year 1995 and had performed the work of Pit Clerk and Cap Lamp Issue Clerk, which are posts falling under the Monthly Rated Category. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that since 1997, the petitioner is working as an Assistant Store Keeper, which falls under the Monthly Rated Category Grade-II but even though the petitioner is continuously discharging his duty as an Assistant Store Keeper but the remuneration, which he is getting, is that of a Store Boy/Mazdoor, which falls under the Time Rated Category. The petitioner had represented the authority for his regularization as Assistant Store Keeper but when his grievance was not redressed, the petitioner preferred a writ application, which was disposed of directing the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Mugma Area, Dhanbad to consider the case of the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law. However, since the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority on 19.12.2005, the petitioner once again preferred a writ application, which was, however, dismissed on 7.5.2010 with an observation that in the event the Management adopts any such policy to enable the conversion of employees from Time Rated Category to Monthly Rated Category, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to filing of the counter affidavit in earlier writ application i.e. WP (S) No. 823 of 2006, a Circular dated 11.09.2009 was issued, in which it was directed that no persons deployed in clerical job prior to 12.12.2009 shall be left out for their absorption in clerical grade. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to filing of the counter affidavit in earlier writ application i.e. WP (S) No. 823 of 2006, a Circular dated 11.09.2009 was issued, in which it was directed that no persons deployed in clerical job prior to 12.12.2009 shall be left out for their absorption in clerical grade. The case of the petitioner in terms of the said circular was recommended for regularization but vide order dated 9.7.2012, his claim was rejected, which is under challenge in the present writ application. 4. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitioner has preferred the writ application in view of the subsequent development, which had occurred after disposal of WP (S) No. 823 of 2006. It has been submitted that although the writ application preferred by the petitioner was not entertained by this Court but an observation was made therein that if the Management adopts any policy with respect to conversion of employees in Time Rated Category to the Monthly Rated Category, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered. It has further been submitted that a counter affidavit was filed in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 in the year 2008 when the latter circular did not come into existence. However, after disposal of the writ application, the petitioner could come to know about the Circular dated 11.09.2009, which specifically mandates conversion of a Time Rated Employee to Monthly Rated Employee of all persons, who have been deployed in a clerical job prior to 12.12.2001. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is working as an Assistant Store Keeper, which is a clerical job since 1997, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the parameters delineated in the Circular dated 11.09.2009 and in such circumstances, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel also adds that in similar circumstances, one Smt. Mridula Sarkar, who was a General Mazdoor, has been regularized as a Dak Dispatch Employee in Monthly Rated Clerical Grade-III vide office order dated 7.9./2/2011. 6. Mr. Learned counsel also adds that in similar circumstances, one Smt. Mridula Sarkar, who was a General Mazdoor, has been regularized as a Dak Dispatch Employee in Monthly Rated Clerical Grade-III vide office order dated 7.9./2/2011. 6. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that this issue had earlier been pleaded by the petitioner in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006, in which the claim of the petitioner was rejected in view of the policy decision adopted by the Company. It has been submitted that petitioner has renewed his earlier claim on the basis of Circular dated 11.09.2009, which was in vogue when the earlier order was passed on 7.5.2010 in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a fresh grievance or a new plea every time he fails to succeed. It has further been submitted that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the list consisting of workers deployed in the clerical grade from Time Rated Category prior to 2001 as the petitioner has not been deployed in clerical grade. It has also been submitted that had the petitioner been performing the job of Store Clerk, his name would definitely have figured in the said list and therefore the petitioner cannot equate his case with that of Smt. Mridula Sarkar, who was regularized in a Monthly Rated Clerk Grade-III post as she was performing the job of a Dak Dispatch Clerk. 7. The petitioner had on the earlier occasion also pleaded that he was working as an Assistant Store Keeper since 1997. The original appointment of the petitioner was that of a General Mazdoor. It has been noted in the order passed in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 that the petitioner was authorized to work in Stores as a Store Boy for collecting materials and such authorization does not suggest that the nature of his job is that of Store Keeper or Assistant Store Keeper or of any job clerical in nature. Considering the plea of the petitioner, in which he claimed parity with some other employees, it was held that since there is a mark distinction in case of the petitioner and those employees inasmuch as the nature of the petitioner's work was never a clerical job, the said plea was not considered. Considering the plea of the petitioner, in which he claimed parity with some other employees, it was held that since there is a mark distinction in case of the petitioner and those employees inasmuch as the nature of the petitioner's work was never a clerical job, the said plea was not considered. It, therefore, appears that whatever plea has been raised by the petitioner with respect to his nature of job as an Assistant Store Keeper has been negated in the earlier round of litigation. The only ground, in which the petitioner has virtually re agitated his claim, is the observation made in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 with respect to consideration of the claim of the petitioner if the Management adopts any such policy for conversion of employees in Time Rated Category to the Monthly Rated Category. The Circular dated 11.09.2009 is for regularization of those employees in clerical grade who have been deployed in a clerical job prior to 12.12.2001. Since the claim of the petitioner has already been negated by this Court in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 with respect to his nature of job, which is not clerical, the petitioner cannot take recourse to Circular dated 11.09.2009 as the same fixed a cut off date of 12.12.2001. The order passed in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006 having not been challenged by the petitioner in appeal has attained its finality. The findings in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006, as has been indicated above, do point to the fact that the nature of job of the petitioner was not clerical and nothing has been put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner to disturb this finding. Moreover, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the order passed in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006. 8. In view of the findings recorded in WP (S) No. 823 of 2006, the case of the petitioner does not come within the purview of Circular dated 11.09.2009 and therefore the rejection of claim for regularization of the petitioner as a Store Clerk by letter dated 9.12/7/2012 cannot be said to be an illegal order. 9. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.