JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the decision of the respondent dated 19.11.2013 whereby the respondent authority has denied the benefits of Establishment Circular to the petitioner. 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 16.8.1984 as a Store Lasker Work-charged with the respondent at Thermal Power Station, Sikka and was appointed as a Store Lasker on Super-numery post on 11.5.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as a Junior Assistant vide order dated 11.8.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to Sr. Assistant vide order dated 17.4.2001 in the grade of Rs.4000-10025 and since then the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant with respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner and other employees had raised an Industrial Disputes against the respondents vide Reference IT No. 101 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. The Industrial Tribunal had passed an award on 26.7.2004 granting benefits under Establishment Circular No. 446 to the petitioner and other employees. The respondents had given the benefits of Establishment Circular No.446 and Establishment Circular No.371 to the employees, who were appointed on or before the petitioner. There were number of employees to whom the respondents had given the benefits of both the Establishment Circulars i.e. Establishment Circular Nos.446 and 371. However, the respondents had given the benefits of Establishment Circular No.446 to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.05.1987, but not given the benefit of Establishment Circular No.371 w.e.f. 16.08.1984, as was given to the other similarly situated employees. Thereafter, the petitioner had made representation and on the basis of such representation the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 9307 of 2013 and this Court vide order dated 26.9.2013 disposed of the said petition and directed the respondent company to decide the pending representation of the petitioner. 2.1 The decision of the Industrial Court in Reference IT No. 101 of 1991 dated 26.7.2004 was not challenged by the petitioner. On the contrary the respondents have challenged such decision by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1278 of 2005 and the said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by this Court and therefore, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal became final. 3. Heard Mr. Hemal K. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. 3. Heard Mr. Hemal K. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in earlier round of litigation this Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner by way of decision dated 19.11.2013 and denied the benefits to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, at the time of appointment has already got the benefits under Establishment Order 446 and therefore, the Establishment Order 371 cannot be applicable in the case of present petitioner. 4.1 Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed in 1984 as work-charged employee but from the date of his appointment the respondents have considered the petitioner as Junior Assistant and he was assigned work of Junior Assistant and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits from the date on which he was initially appointed. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case of similarly situated persons, the respondents have granted benefits of both Establishment Circulars i.e. 446 and 371. Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the case of the petitioner was considered and the benefit was extended in favour of the petitioner however, the said benefit was withdrawn by the respondents in 1995. 4.2 Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of both the Establishment Circulars i.e. 446 and 371. 4.3 In view of the above facts, Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court that present petition may be allowed and the impugned decision of the respondents may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be given benefits of both the Establishment Circulars i.e. 446 and 371. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has objected present petition. He has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has emphasized upon paragraph Nos. 5 to 13 of the said affidavit-in-reply which read as under:- "5. The petitioner earlier filed Special Civil Application No.9307 of 2013 by suppressing several facts. He has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has emphasized upon paragraph Nos. 5 to 13 of the said affidavit-in-reply which read as under:- "5. The petitioner earlier filed Special Civil Application No.9307 of 2013 by suppressing several facts. It was pointed out by filing affidavit-in-reply in the said proceedings on behalf of the respondents that "the petitioner has deliberately and willfully suppressed the fact that for the very cause of action also the petitioner along with other had raised industrial dispute. The said industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot being Reference (IT) No.101 of 1991. After appreciating all the documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has passed award that the concerned employee Shri Dhiren Acharya shall be given all the benefits as Junior Assistant with effect from 11.05.1987. A copy of award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R1. The aspect is deliberately suppressed by the petitioner and only on this ground, petition is required to be rejected. It is very clear that cause of action for filing this petition is Establishment Circular No.446, pursuant to which the petitioner prays that he should be given benefit of promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with back date. The learned Tribunal has appreciated all these aspects and given final award. It is pertinent to note that the said award was challenged by the respondents before this Hon'ble Court by way of Special Civil Application no.1278 of 2005 and the said challenge came to be negatived by this Hon'ble Court and thus, the award became final. The petitioner did not challenge the said award and has accepted the said award. Now the petitioner wants some more benefit contrary to the said award. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully suppressed the facts and circumstances of the said award and has filed the present petition and therefore, this petition may kindly be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact". 6. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the said petition vide order dated 26.09.2013. 6. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court without entering into the merits of the case, disposed of the said petition vide order dated 26.09.2013. It is required to be noted at this stage that the very controversy which now the of petitioner seeks to raise has been finally settled between the parties by virtue of award of learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) N .101 of 1991. In fact, the petitioner has been given pay-scale and all benefits as Junior Assistant from 11.05.1987. Therefore, now nothing further requires to be done in the matter. The petitioner has accepted the said award which was passed on 26.07.2004 and therefore also, now the petitioner cannot re-agitate the entire issue. On the ground that there is no dispute and/or lis between the parties, this petition is required to be rejected. 7. I say and submit that the petitioner is in habit of making false allegations, suppression of facts and filing other proceedings. It is submitted that earlier contempt application was also filed by the petitioner and other employees before this Hon'ble Court being Contempt Petition No.2048 of 2006 to 2056 of 2006, which came to be disposed of by this Hon'ble Court by order dated 01.02.2007. Further, the petitioner and other employees has also filed Recovery Application No.16 of 2005 to 25 of 2005 before the Labour Court, Rajkot and the same are pending for adjudication though all the benefits have already been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed complaint for breach of award before the Commissioner of Labour and the case has been filed against the concerned officers of GSECL before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar being Criminal Complaint No.7753 of 2008. All these facts are deliberately suppressed before this Hon'ble Court and therefore also, this petition is required to be rejected. 8. It is pertinent to note that on one hand for the implementation of award proceedings are initiated by the petitioner and the award which is already implemented as per GSECL has been made subject matter of various proceedings by the petitioner. Now before this Hon'ble Court the petitioner totally ignores the award and press that he be made Junior Assistant with effect from 16.08.1984 and he be paid arrears. Now before this Hon'ble Court the petitioner totally ignores the award and press that he be made Junior Assistant with effect from 16.08.1984 and he be paid arrears. It is submitted that if the prayer prayed for in the petition is granted, then the same will be directly in contradiction with the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal which is binding to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has relied upon one order of In-charge Executive Engineer dated 03.05.1991 without disclosing the fact that the said order when found to be erroneous and obtained rep by the petitioner in collusion with the Executive Engineer In-charge, the same was cancelled by subsequent order of the In-charge Chief Engineer dated 16.11.1995. A copy of said order dated 16.11.1995 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R2. It is submitted that all these documents were very much in existence and the petitioner is also in knowledge of all these documents. Despite this fact, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the corrigendum order and has relied upon the order which has already been cancelled. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of serious suppression of material facts. 9. It is submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making repeated and unnecessary representations to the higher authorities. Once the dispute between the parties has been finally decided and came end, it is unnecessary for petitioner to go on making representations. It is submitted that in view of this fact, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased reject the petition cost. 10. For the cause of action of the year 1984, the petitioner earlier filed petition in the year 2013 and thereafter now once again after rejection of representation, filed the present petition. therefore also, this petition is required to be rejected. 11. The petitioner is comparing his case with one A.G. Joshi. However, the petitioner's case is totally different from the said Junior Assistant, who was having continuous service whereas the petitioner was not having continuous service. In fact, the learned Tribunal has recorded finding of fact while granting the benefit to the petitioner from 11.05.1997. 12. It is required to be noted that the petitioner thereafter came to be promoted as Senior Assistant. The said promotion order has been accepted by the petitioner. Thus, now after having accepted subsequent promotion order, the cause of action of original post, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition. 12. It is required to be noted that the petitioner thereafter came to be promoted as Senior Assistant. The said promotion order has been accepted by the petitioner. Thus, now after having accepted subsequent promotion order, the cause of action of original post, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition. The petitioner's reliance on certificates are also totally misconceived inasmuch as all those documents were very much in existence when award was passed and therefore now, the petitioner cannot press into service those documents. There is break in service of the petitioner and the petitioner had not completed 960 days on the relevant date. Therefore, the petitioner's case that he is entitled for the seniority from 06.08.1984 is totally misconceived. The petitioner has not been discriminated as pleaded by him. In fact, petitioner's case is covered by the award and now he cannot raise any dispute on this aspect. 13. The respondents have passed order on 19.11.2013 wherein all the relevant facts have been noted and the representation of petitioner has been rejected. It is pertinent to note that even after rejection of the petitioner's representation on 19.11.2013, petitioner kept on forwarding one after another representation. It is submitted that on 14.02.2014 once again the petitioner was informed that he is wasting time by making unnecessary representations. It is submitted that even after the said letter of respondents, petitioner once again made representation on 02.04.2014. It is very clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he has no sanctity of law and is making unnecessary representations one after another. The petitioner has filed this petition after long delay since mere making representation will not extend time limit. In view of these facts, this petition may kindly be rejected." 5.1 Mr. Deepak Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that for the very cause of action, the petitioner along with other employees had raised industrial dispute and the said dispute was referred for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot being Reference (IT) No. 101 of 1991 and the said reference was decided vide order dated 26.7.2004. Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged said award till date before any forum and the petitioner has accepted the said award. Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 has further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged said award till date before any forum and the petitioner has accepted the said award. He has further submitted that by the said award the petitioner has been given pay scale and all benefits as Junior Assistant from 11.5.1987 and therefore, now the petitioner cannot re- agitate the entire issue. 5.2 In view of the above facts, Mr. Deepak R. Dave, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 urges before the Court that present petition may be not be entertained and the same may be dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit as prayed for in the petition. 6. I have perused the material available on record and the relevant papers as well as the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 7. The controversy involved in present petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the Establishment Circular Nos. 446 and 371 as prayed for in present petition, though the same was withdrawn on 16.11.1995 and subsequently in view of order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 26.7.2004 whether the petition is maintainable without challenging these decisions. 8. At the outset, it is relevant to note herein that vide order dated 26.9.2013 this Court had directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. The said order dated 26.9.2013 reads as under:- “1. This Court vide order dated 20.06.2013 has passed the following order: "Notice returnable on 17.07.2013 only for the limited purpose of issuing direction for deciding the pending applications. Direct service is permitted." 2. Considering the fact that the petition was entertained only on the limitation aspect of considering the pending application filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if the respondent-Company is requested to decide the pending application of the petitioner and send a reply to the petitioner. It is however made clear that this Court has not opined anything on merits and it would be open for the respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by this order in any manner. 3. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged." 9. It is however made clear that this Court has not opined anything on merits and it would be open for the respondent to take appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by this order in any manner. 3. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged." 9. On perusal of the record and in view of the averments made in the petition, it comes out that on the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner was directed to make representation and the respondents was also directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner. The said representation was considered by the respondents and the decision was taken on 19.11.2013 wherein specific reason was stated in the decision, which reads as under:- "It is to also inform that the benefit of continuous service as per EC No.371 dt.16-10-82 which is meant for work- charged and temporary services (without break) rendered by employee with regular service. Whereas, the concept of EC-446 dt. 14-2-85 is for taking up NMR employees on supernumerary post, which came after the issuance of EC-371 dt.16-10-82. Hence, the EC-371 cannot be applicable to the employees who have given the benefit of EC-446." 10. It appears that the petitioner was considered for the benefits at the time when he was appointed in 1984 and at that point of time the petitioner was received the benefit under the Establishment Circular No.446 and therefore, now he cannot entitle to get the benefit under Establishment Circular No. 371. Further, the said benefit which was extended rightly or wrongly in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn in 1995 by the respondent. It is pertinent to note herein that the said decision of the respondent withdrawing the benefit from the petitioner was never challenged by the petitioner till date before any forum. 11. The second limb of the submission is that the petitioner has approached the Industrial Tribunal by way of preferring Reference IT No. 101 of 1991. It appears that even at that time also the Industrial Tribunal has not extended the benefit as prayed for by the petitioner and considered the date of his appointment and granted the benefit from 11.5.1987 treating his regular appointed as Junior Assistant. It appears that even at that time also the Industrial Tribunal has not extended the benefit as prayed for by the petitioner and considered the date of his appointment and granted the benefit from 11.5.1987 treating his regular appointed as Junior Assistant. The said decision of 2014 was taken almost 10 years before filing of present petition and the said decision was also not challenged by the petitioner by filing any proceedings and now by way of present petition, the said decision is indirectly challenged by the petitioner which is not permissible and therefore, on both counts, the present petition fails and devoid of any merits. 12. For the foregoing reasons, present petition does not deserve to be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.