JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22315/2022 (S-RES). 2. Heard Shri. B.V.Shankara Narayana Rao, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Ravi Kumar K.N, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 and Shri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The writ petition had been filed challenging the Official Memorandum dated 31.01.2022 issued by respondent No.2, declining to grant the monetary benefits to the petitioners on the ground that they are entitled to such benefits only from the date of the order of their regularisation and not on the date on which they complete ten years of service. The learned Single Judge found that an earlier Writ Petitions had been filed as W.Ps.No.60156- 60164/2016 and the same was dismissed on 15.02.2019. The judgment was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.1035/2019 on 02.08.2019. It was found that the non-disclosure of dismissal of the earlier round of writ petitions amounted to deliberate suppression and that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the prayers in the earlier Writ Petitions were separate and distinct and that the non- mentioning of the filing of the earlier Writ Petitions was not deliberate or was not intended to mislead the Court. It is submitted that the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petitions would not have any bearing on the present Writ Petition since the prayers raised herein was only for payment of consequential monetary benefits for treating the prior period as service for pension. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents as well as learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Panchayath, on the other hand, contend that a plain reading of the prayers made in the Writ Petitions would make it clear that the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petitions would amount to constructive res judicata in the present proceedings and that the non-disclosure was therefore deliberate. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also looked into the pleadings and the documents on record. 6. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also looked into the pleadings and the documents on record. We see that the prayer in the present writ petition was for quashing of Annexure-A order and seeking directions to respondent No.2 to consider the service of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment. A further prayer is sought to respondent No.2 to settle monetary service and consequential benefits from 02.02.1997. We notice that the appellants were admittedly parties in the earlier round of writ petitions as well. Pursuant to directions of this Court, the appellants had placed on record the copy of the order in the earlier round of writ petitions as Annexure-J and the copy of the judgment in the writ appeal as Annexure-K. 7. A reading of Annexure-J would show that the self same petitioners were parties in the earlier round of writ petitions being the petitioners in W.Ps.No.60156- 60164/2016 and connected matters. The prayer raised was to set aside the order of respondent No.2 dated 05.11.2016. The matter was heard at length and the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners had not pointed out any provision of law which would enable the services of the petitioners to be regularised from the date when they completed ten years of service. It was held that the burden lies heavily on the petitioners to prove that they were full time daily wage employees and the said burden is not discharged. It was therefore found that the decision of the Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Singamuthu reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 , applies on all fours to the facts of the case. The writ petition was therefore dismissed. 8. Though the matter was taken in an appeal by Shri. K.L. Shivanna, one of the petitioners, the Division Bench also found that the order of regularisation dated 27.04.2012 specifically held that the employees would be entitled for benefits only from the date of such regularisation. It was found that even the order of recovery of amounts already paid cannot be interfered with. The writ appeal was also dismissed. 9. The petitioners apparently took up the matter before respondent No.2 again, seeking re-fixing of the regularisation date. It was found that even the order of recovery of amounts already paid cannot be interfered with. The writ appeal was also dismissed. 9. The petitioners apparently took up the matter before respondent No.2 again, seeking re-fixing of the regularisation date. Respondent No.2 considered the matter and found that the daily wage employees were regularized in accordance with the orders referred as Reference No.3 to 5 and 7 to 9. It was found that the recovery of salary drawn in excess had been waived pursuant to Government directions. Since their date of entry into service is after 01.04.2006, they would not be eligible for the Old Pension Scheme. It was also held that financial benefits available to the regularised employees from the date of their regularisation would be paid to them. Therefore, it is clear that the question raised in both the writ petitions is essentially with regard to the date on which the regularisation would take effect. 10. When the orders of regularisation specifically stated that the regularisation would be prospective, the employees had challenged the said action of the Zilla Panchayat and had suffered the dismissal of their writ petition. The writ appeal filed by them against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed. However, without making any mention as to the filing of the earlier writ petition, they sought to file the present writ petition challenging the order by which their claim for re-fixing the date of their regularization had been rejected. 11. We notice that, in effect, the challenge was the same. Had the petitioners pleaded about the filing and the dismissal of a writ petition on an earlier point of time, there would have been some mitigating factor in their contentions. However, admittedly this was not done. The filing of the earlier writ petition was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.22315/2022. 12. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge. We find no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.