IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5476 of 2005 MADAN MOHAN SINGH S/O LATE SHYAM SUNDER SINGH R/O OF HOUSE NO. 1/11 VIVEKANAND MARG IN FRONT OF A.N.COLLEGE, BOARING ROAD, PS- S.K.PURI TOWN & DISTT- PATNA-------------------- PETRITIONER Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. CHAIRMAN BSEB, BIDYUT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 3. SECRETARY, BSEB, PATNA 4. JOINT SECY. BSEB, PATNA 5. ACCOUNT OFFICER (T.B) BSEB, PATNA 6. ELECDTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, LAHERIASARAI, DARBHANGA (URBAN)--RESPONDENTS ----------- 7 9.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner retired in the year, 2003 from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer. Thereafter he approached this High Court for payment of his retiral dues which would be evident from annexure-4. Petitioner was even paid certain amount during the court’s proceeding. Hence the writ application was disposed of with an observation that if there is any other grievance the petitioner would have liberty to raise the same before the authority. The word “any other” has now been interpreted by the petitioner to file a fresh writ application and claim shifting of the date of promotion on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer from 29.8.1998 to 23.7.1997 i.e. the date when his junior was granted promotion to the said post. The Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application of the petitioner on this count for the reason that the present prayer is an after thought and shows that the petitioner had no grievance when his junior was given promotion from 23.7.97 - 2 - because he never challenged the order of promotion or approached the authority in this regard while he was in service. As already noted above that he retired in 2003 and he filed CWJC No. 1365 of 2004 for retiral dues and even got benefit of the same by judicial intervention and it is only now in 2005 he realized that he can make a case for shifting of his date of promotion. In the opinion of the Court this writ application is not only hit by laches, acquiescence but also principle of res judicata because he did not claim the above relief in the earlier writ application as would be evident from annexure-4 itself. The prayer for shifting of the date of promotion is rejected. So far grant of increment is concerned, the respondents have granted this benefit to the petitioner. The respondents in their counter affidavit have indicated that they have already settled the issue under the head of increment and the same was ordered to be paid. Even this grievance of the petitioner to that extent has been redressed. There is no other adjudication required in the writ application. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)