A fresh writ petition seeking substantially identical relief is not maintainable while earlier proceedings remain pending.

The petitioner, appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 19.08.2007 and regularized on 04.03.2014, remained absent from duty allegedly due to prolonged illness. She claimed to have obtained fitness certificates from the District Medical Board and made repeated attempts to resume duty, but the authorities allegedly declined to accept her joining.

By order dated 25.08.2023, her services were treated as deemed resigned on account of unauthorized absence.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the same order in WPS No. 7847 of 2023, seeking quashing of the order, permission to join duty, and treatment of the absence period as qualifying service.

That petition was disposed of on 05.10.2023 with a direction to the authorities to consider and decide her pending representation dated 09.06.2023 within three months.

Alleging non-compliance with that order, the petitioner instituted Contempt Case No. CONT/1371/2024, which remained pending.

She thereafter filed the present writ petition again challenging the order dated 25.08.2023 and seeking consequential reliefs.

Whether the present writ petition, challenging the same order and seeking substantially the same reliefs already raised in WPS No. 7847 of 2023, was maintainable?

Whether the petitioner could seek fresh writ relief when contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the earlier writ order were pending?

The Court applied the principle that a petitioner who has already availed a remedy on the same facts and cause of action cannot maintain a fresh writ petition seeking substantially identical reliefs, particularly while the earlier proceedings remain pending.

The Court further held that where contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with an earlier writ order are pending, fresh interference under writ jurisdiction is unwarranted; the petitioner must pursue the pending contempt proceedings.

The Court found that the impugned order dated 25.08.2023 had already been challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 7847 of 2023, in which she sought the same principal reliefs—quashing of the order, reinstatement, and recognition of the absence period as service.

Although that petition was disposed of on the limited basis of directing consideration of her representation, the petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings alleging breach of that direction, and those proceedings were still pending.

Since the present petition arose from the same facts and cause of action and substantially sought the reliefs already pursued, the Court held that entertaining it would amount to allowing parallel proceedings contrary to the applicable rule of writ maintainability.

Accordingly, WPS No. 6525 of 2026 was dismissed at the motion stage.

The petitioner was, however, granted liberty to pursue Contempt Case No. CONT/1371/2024.