ORDER : 1. Seeking a direction to the respondents to implement an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No. 904 of 2010 dated 02.9.2013, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. S.A.K. Mynoddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I (Telangana) takes notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 904 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal claiming that he was appointed as a Games Boy way back in the year 1992 and that he worked in the said post for a period of 7 years, drawing a paltry amount of Rs. 78/- per month; that he was thereafter appointed as a Part-time Lab Attender in the year 1999 against a regular post on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,000/- per month; that he later acquired the qualification of a pass in SSC in June, 2000, that thereafter by the order dated 16.7.2008, his services were dispensed with. 4. The said application O.A. No. 904 of 2010 was disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 02.9.2013, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of four weeks. However, the said order was not complied with. 5. Therefore, the petitioner, instead of filing a contempt petition before the Tribunal, filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 38881 of 2015 on the file of this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court at the stage of admission on 07.12.2015, leaving it open to him to resort to appropriate legal remedies available in law. 6. However, the petitioner came up with a fresh writ petition in W.P. No. 7769 of 2017, contending that by the time he went to the Tribunal, the Government of Telangana has withdrawn from the Tribunal and that therefore he could not seek other remedies before the Tribunal. 7. But the said writ petition W.P. No. 7769 of 2017 was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 07.3.2017, on the ground that the withdrawal of the State of Telangana from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal happened long after the expiry of the period of limitation for the petitioner to file a contempt before the Tribunal and that therefore the petitioner was not entitled to seek implementation of the order of the Tribunal from this Court. 8. 8. However, while dismissing the writ petition W.P. No. 7769 of 2017, this Court also took pity upon the petitioner and simply observed that the dismissal of the writ petition will not preclude the parties from considering any representation made by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by the proceedings dated 22.7.2017. 10. After such rejection, without challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the third writ petition in succession, seeking the implementation of the orders of the Tribunal, which has been rejected in two earlier writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.