IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8528 of 2005 MADAN MOHAN TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06/ 12/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Girijesh Kumar, assisting counsel to A.A.G. 3 for the State and Mr. L.P.K. Rajgrihar for the Accountant General. The petitioner has prayed for re-fixation of his post retiral benefits after providing him the benefit of the first time bound promotion with effect from 1981 and the second time bound promotion subsequent thereto. In response to the claim set out by the petitioner a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-State and in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the first time bound promotion for the year 1981 was rejected on grounds of A.C.R. being adverse vide resolution dated 21.9.1985. However, the same was subsequently granted to him with effect from 1.4.1985. In so far the second time bound promotion is concerned, it was stated that vide resolution dated 19.7.1995 it was resolved that as there was adverse remarks against the petitioner and departmental proceedings was also pending, at the first instance the issue was kept pending but only to be rejected subsequently vide resolution dated 5.7.2006. Copies thereof have been enclosed to the counter affidavit. Indisputably neither the petitioner challenges - 2 - the date of the first time bound promotion nor the rejection of the claim for second time bound promotion vide resolution dated 5.7.2006. The respondents in paragraph-10 have also stated that entire retiral benefits including the benefit of first time bound promotion has been calculated and given to him and nothing survives. However, a feeble attempt has been made with regard to the some excess amount paid to him for the period 1.4.1984 to 1.4.1985. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and in paragraph-7 thereof he has admitted that he has been drawing his retiral benefits in terms of the first time bound promotion. He submits that the grievance is now limited to the second time bound promotion. Having regard to the fact that the order of rejection of the second time bound promotion as contained in the resolution dated 5.7.2006 was never challenged by the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to raise his grievance in relation thereto and the same is rejected. As admittedly the petitioner has been drawing his retiral benefits in terms of the first time bound promotion, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition and the same is disposed of with a direction to the authorities not to carry out any recovery process. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)