JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. This petition has been filed with the following prayer: ''(a) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay 9% interest to the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- of retiral dues since 30.6.2017 till date to the petitioner, within stipulated period.'' 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He states that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ-A No. 9556 of 2020 before this Court praying for retiral benefits alongwith admissible interest and with further direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17.8.2020. 3. This Court initially entertained the said writ petition on 11.11.2020 directing the respondents to obtain instructions with regard to the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. This Court directed the matter to be listed on 18.8.2021 and further directed that post retiral benefits of the petitioner may be paid to him, failing which, the Secretary (Water Supply)Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow shall file his personal affidavit on or before the date fixed or otherwise, the Court would be forced to summon the Officer concerned in person. When the matter was taken up on 18.8.2021, the petitioner made a statement before the Court that nothing further survives in the petition as respondents have affected compliance with the order dated 12.7.2021 and, accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on the same day. 4. The copy of the order dated 18.8.2021 has been placed before this Court. 5. The counsel for the respondent says that once the petitioner had made a prayer for grant of retiral benefits alongwith the admissible interest in his earlier writ petition, which writ petition was disposed of having become infructuous, no second writ petition claiming interest of delayed payment is maintainable. 5-A.The counsel for the petitioner states that interest admittedly has not been paid by the respondents. 6. 5-A.The counsel for the petitioner states that interest admittedly has not been paid by the respondents. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Devilal Modi v. STO, 1965 (1) SCR 686 , was considering whether the principles of Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata would apply to writ jurisdiction and it observed that though the Courts dealing with the questions of infringement of fundamental rights must consistently endeavour to sustain the said rights and should strike down their unconstitutional invasion, it would not be right to ignore the principle of res judicata altogether in dealing with writ petitions filed by citizens alleging the contraventions of their fundamental rights. If a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he would not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is based on the same cause of action, because the principle of constructive res judicata is based on sound public policy of finality of judgments. 7. The Supreme Court in its Full Bench decision in Surya Deo Mishra v. State of U.P., 2006(1) ADJ 467 (FB), has held that the Rules of the Court prohibit second writ petition for the same cause of action. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 provides that where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to move a second application on the same facts. Even if the petitioner has withdrawn the earlier writ petition or it is dismissed as infructuous, without leave to file a fresh petition, a second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable. 8. Once the relief is framed in a particular manner in one writ petition and such relief is not granted at the time of final disposal of the writ petition by the Court, it shall be presumed that relief so claimed stands rejected. 9. Thus, writ petition therefore, stands dismissed. Thus, the writ petition is rejected as not maintainable.