1974), but when request was not heeded, he preferred Writ Petition No.54397 of 2000, which was decided vide order dated 18.12.2000 directing appellants to decide representation of petitioner. The representation was rejected vide order dated 27.12.2000 whereagainst petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.2286 of 2001. It was allowed and appellants were directed to consider the petitioner's application under Rules 1974. Again it was rejected on 07/09.04.2001 on the ground that Rules, 1974 are not applicable to the petitioner's father, since, he was a part time Tube Well Operator. Then again a Writ Petition No.16135 of 2001 was filed. It was allowed vide judgment dated 01.02.2005 whereby Court set aside the order dated 07/09.04.2001 and held that even a part time employee is entitled for benefit of Rules 1974. It is not in dispute that between parties aforesaid judgment has attained finality and it was never challenged by appellants by taking the matter further in intra Court appeal before this Court or before Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal. Appellants again rejected petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment by order dated 16.03.2005 and it is this order which has been set aside by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 25.07.2005 holding that view adopted by respondents-appellants is totally misconceived, since, it is contrary to judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 01.02.2005 and respondents-appellants are not free to take a different view.
