IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11015 of 2005 SIYA SHARAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06/ 02.04.2010 Heard Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, assisting counsel to S.C. 4 and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The writ petition was filed for certain dues amounting to Rs. 3,52,000/-, which according to the petitioner remained pending at the hands of the respondents. The details thereof has been set out in paragraph-7 of the writ petition. It so appears that the writ petitioner had earlier come before this Court challenging the recovery of Rs. 1,37,000/- made from the retiral dues of the petitioner and which writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.7.1998 (Annexure-2) directing the refund of the amount withheld by the respondents within a period of six weeks, failing which they were liable for payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent. In so far as other dues are concerned, the petitioner was given liberty to raise his claims before the Secretary of the Department. Whether the dues in question were ever raised before the authority concerned cannot be ascertained as the representation filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court as contained in Annexure-2 has not been brought on record. However, an order passed on the contempt petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is placed Annexure-2/1 and which contempt petition was disposed of by order dated 24.7.2001 (Annexure2/1) taking note of certain grievance towards G.P.F. A perusal of the said 2 order again does not show whether the petitioner has raised any such grievance before the contempt court. The writ petition thereafter has been filed raising the grievance as set out in paragraph-7. The situation has been dealt with in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. In paragraph-6 thereof it has been stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4809 of 1997, the claims of the petitioner had been considered and disposed of and in that light even the M.J.C. application of the petitioner had been disposed of after payment of entire amount. It is thereafter that the petitioner is now choosing to raise the issue of non-payment of T.A. bills, deputation allowance etc. which were never raised in the earlier proceedings. The issues were never raised by the petitioner and would not be allowed to be raised by way of repeated writ petitions. The petitioner cannot be allowed to vex this Court by repeated writ petitions raising fresh grievance each time. This Court would not delve into the issues raised. The petitioner, if so advised, may raise his grievance in relation to the dues set out in paragraph-7 before the respondent no. 2 the Chief Engineer and who may consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)