IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4463 of 2000 SRI UDIT NARAIN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 09.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. From the pleadings of the parties including the counter affidavit what transpires is that the petitioner was transferred. Being a government servant he choose to assail his order of transfer in a title suit. This Court on 30.3.2006 noticing the same adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner to place on record the progress of the suit as he could not pursue two remedies simultaneously. A supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner dated 9.5.2006 thereafter states that the title suit was dismissed for non prosecution. Perhaps that may make the present writ application barred by constructive resjudicata as the petitioner has not taken any steps to get his suit restored. The counter affidavit of the respondents states that the petitioner who was working in the school of his home district for a long period did not report for duty at the transferred place. These are issues of fact. If the petitioner did not perform duty question of salary did not arise The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)