JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant was appointed in a private school on 03.07.1979. In the year 1992, four posts were sanctioned in the pay-scale of ‘1350-2070, which was the pay-scale of Assistant Teacher in Junior High School. Petitioner was not absorbed as she was not having the required qualification. Relying on the Government Order dated 26.09.1994, appellant sought the trained teacher’s pay-scale from the date, on which approval was granted by the second respondent. Since the appellant not was getting such pay scale, she filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 151 of 2004. That writ petition came to be disposed of by judgment dated 10th July, 2014 by directing a speaking order to be passed on a representation to be made by the petitioner afresh to the 2nd respondent; the decision was to be taken in the light of Diksha Mukti Parman Patra February 1997 and the letter dated 26.03.2003 issued by the Director of Education. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Court seeking three prayers. As far as 1st and 3rd prayers are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the same before us. We are left to consider only the 2nd prayer, which reads as follows: “ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 4 to pay the arrears of salary on the basis of pay-scale of Assistant Teacher as admissible to Assistant Teacher on the post under grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.09.1994 to till date and;” 2. Learned Single Judge took the view that the matter is res judicata and also that in case a representation was moved and no decision was taken thereon, remedy was to file a contempt petition. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though a representation was moved pursuant to the earlier judgment, decision was not as such taken, which addressed the issue and, therefore, it is that the present petition may be justified. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though a representation was moved pursuant to the earlier judgment, decision was not as such taken, which addressed the issue and, therefore, it is that the present petition may be justified. 5. When the prayer is the same essentially and the earlier writ petition stood disposed of directing the appellant to file representation, which was directed to be considered, we are at a loss as to how the appellant could come to the Court after it is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a decision was taken, may be a contempt petition is also filed and pending, but we notice that the decision, which was taken pursuant to the representation, has not been challenged in the second round of litigation and, without setting aside the same, seeking the very same prayer may not be justified. 6. In such circumstances, we affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.