IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9775 of 2008 RAGHO YADAV . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 05.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner questions his superannuation with effect from 31.5.1998 claiming that his correct date of superannuation is 31.5.2000. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Chaukidar and became a government servant with effect from 1.1.1990.The age of retirement fixed by virtue of a notification dated 18.2.1982 was 60 years. He relies upon a Supreme Court judgement reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 62 (State of Bihar Vrs Kamal Bansh Narayan). The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 5469 of 2005 seeking a mandamus for a direction to pay him his retiral dues and pension taking into account his past services rendered in the capacity of Chaukidar. A Bench of this Court held that since he did not fulfil the qualifying service condition under the Bihar Pension Rules he was not eligible for pension. The Letters Patent Appeal against the same was withdrawn to enable him to challenge his order of superannuation on 31.5.1998. The petitioner had the opportunity to raise all the issues in CWJC No. 5469 of 2005. He accepted his date of superannuation as 31.5.1998 and only sought inclusion of certain period of service to be reckoned so as to make it as a pensionable service. The petitioner is therefore estopped now by his own conduct from turning around and pleading for a change in his date of superannuation, having accepted the same earlier. The present grounds were available to him when he came to this Court earlier. He is therefore also debarred on the principle of constructive res-juidcata from raising this issue. The principle is based on the premise that one litigant cannot lis on a matter over and over again. The LPA court did not grant him any liberty or observation with regard to tenability of his claim. The appeal was withdrawn. Such orders are passed when a litigant prefers to withdraw his application rather than inviting an adverse verdict against him. The reliance upon the case of Kamal Bansh Narayan (Supra) is completely misconceived. It related to a claim for past service in a corporation before take over by the State Government to be computed together. That question would arise only after the Court is satisfied that the present writ application was itself maintainable in the nature of the relief sought. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)