ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) granting the petitioner the amount of Rs. 66,119/-as non-practicing allowance to the petitioner alongwith 18% interest thereon within the stipulated period. 10.2. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Medical Department for long term as Orthopedic Specialist as well as Civil Surgeon. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Orthopedic Specialist by the office order dated 03.07.2003 for the period of one year i.e. since 04.07.2003 upto 30.06.2004 in CIMS (Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science), Bilaspur (C.G.). As per the Rules propounded by the State, the non-practicing allowance as well as deputation allowance was to be paid to the petitioner as the post was non-practicing post. As such the non-practicing allowance comes to Rs. 66,119/-, which has not been paid to the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner had made a representation to the Dean on 17.01.2005. Then again on 15.07.2005, a detailed representation was made severally for non-practicing allowance and deputation allowance, but no action was taken thereon. Then the further representation was made to the Dean on 25.04.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(S) No.4229/2008, in which the Court on 07.12.2009 decided the case with a direction that the respondent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and circular within a period of 4 weeks. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Court order, the detailed representation was submitted to the respondent no.2, but despite of the direction of this Court, the respondent authority did not consider the representation of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition, in which the respondents filed the reply and submitted the impugned order. Thus, the liberty has been granted by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is free to proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Thus, the liberty has been granted by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is free to proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wrong adjudication by the respondents has become the cause of action for filing the instant writ petition. The respondents have infringed the legal rights of the petitioner ignoring his entitlement, which has to be dealt with very sternly. Under the service Rules and circular of the State, the deputation allowance and non-practicing allowance has always to be given to the employees serving on deputation to other institution. Apart from this a petty amount of Rs. 6,683/- has been paid as a pittance making the joke of his service. The calculation has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is only entitled to get Rs.6,683/- as deputation allowance, but they have not considered the non- practicing allowance of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. The respondents have only considered the deputation allowance of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has claimed deputation allowance as well as non- practicing allowance, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 66,119/- alongwith interest as non-practicing allowance which has not been paid to him till date. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner on his fanciful assumption and claim has submitted and pleaded in the writ petition that the amount that is paid to him is Improper and is seeking payment of Rs. 66,119/- towards Non Practicing Allowance. The petitioner is a Orthopedic Surgeon and is specialist, as such according to the finance instruction No.08/2011 dated 14/03/2011, the petitioner is not entitled to Non Practicing Allowance. The Finance Instruction No.08/2011 in its clause 4 provides that Administrative Officers and such Teachers of Medicine who are not permitted to do private practice would be entitled for Non Practicing Allowance. In the present case, the petitioner being a specialist, he was not entitled to Non Practicing Allowance. The Finance Instruction No.08/2011 in its clause 4 provides that Administrative Officers and such Teachers of Medicine who are not permitted to do private practice would be entitled for Non Practicing Allowance. In the present case, the petitioner being a specialist, he was not entitled to Non Practicing Allowance. The petitioner was posted in CIMS on deputation as a specialist in Orthopedic department, as such the petitioner is not performing any teaching work in CIMS and also was not discharging any administrative duty. Therefore, according to clause 4 of the Finance Instruction No. 08/2011, the petitioner has rightly been denied Non Practicing Allowance. The petitioner had earlier already preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No.4229/2008 which was disposed of on 07/12/2009 (Annexure- P-4) with a direction to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and circulars, as may be applicable, upon which the petitioner’s representation was considered and decided, but again the petitioner preferred a Contempt Case (C) No. 397/2012, which was closed/dismissed on 08/04/015. Presently in the writ petition the petitioner has not raised any new grounds apart from those raised in the writ petition, which was disposed of on 07/12/2009. Therefore applying on the well settled principle of doctrine of res judicata the present petition is not maintainable and therefore it deserves to be dismissed. 5. In response to the return filed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed rejoinder stating therein that the petitioner was posted in CIMS on deputation as a specialist doctor for the specific period from 30.07.2003 upto 30.06.2004, as such during the said period, the petitioner has worked as lecturer in the department of orthopedic CIMS Bilaspur and to that effect the certificate has been issued by the Dean of CIMS and the same has also been annexed as ANNEXURE-A/1. The petitioner has worked in CIMS for the specific period as teaching staff/medical teacher and he has performed administrative work also. Therefore the circular as relied upon the respondents does not come in the way and the petitioner is fully eligible for getting the non-practicing allowance for the said period. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was posted as Orthopedic Specialist in CIMS, Bilaspur by order dated 03.07.2003 on deputation from 15.07.2003 to 25.09.2004. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was posted as Orthopedic Specialist in CIMS, Bilaspur by order dated 03.07.2003 on deputation from 15.07.2003 to 25.09.2004. In the previous litigation, this Court directed the respondents vide order dated 07.12.2009 passed in WPS No.4229/2018 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and circular as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks therefrom, thereafter vide order impugned dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure-P/1), his case has been considered and he has been paid Rs.6683/-, against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per rules, the petitioner is entitled for non practicing allowance, but the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner relying upon Clause 4 of the circular dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure-R/1) filed by the respondents. Clause 4 of the circular is as under:- **4- iz’kkldh; vf/kdkjh ,oa ,sls fpfdRlk f’k{kd ftUgksaus futh iszfDVl djus dh NwV ugha izkIr dh gS] vO;olkf;d HkRrk ds ik7 gksaxsA** 9. The petitioner has also filed Annexure-A/1, which is a certificate dated 01.09.2005 issued by the Dean, CIMS, Bilaspur certifying that the petitioner has worked as Lecturer in the Department of Orthopedics, CIMS since 24.07.2001 to 24.09.2004. The petitioner has also filed appointment order dated 09.06.2006, whereby he was deputed in the CIMS, but the same has not been rebutted by the respondents that the petitioner was posted on deputation in CIMS, whereas the respondents have denied that the petitioner is performing any teaching work in CIMS, but as per Annexure-A/1, it is clear that the petitioner was working as Lecturer in the Department since 24.07.2001 to 24.09.2004. The respondents did not dispute this document/certificate, which was issued by the Dean, CIMS, as such under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for non practicing allowances, but the respondents did not consider his representation properly according to rules and circulars of government. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay all due non practising amount payable to the petitioner with 6% interest per annum from the date of petitioner’s entitlement till its actual realization within a period of 2 months from today. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay all due non practising amount payable to the petitioner with 6% interest per annum from the date of petitioner’s entitlement till its actual realization within a period of 2 months from today. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.