IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6011 of 2011 PROF.M.N.A.ANJUM S/O MD. SHAWSUDDIN, RESIDENT OF NEEMTOLA SAHRA FARIDPUR, SAKRA, P.O. SAKRA, P.S. SAKRA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE B.R.A.BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE REGISTRAR, THE B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPTT. OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 6.4.2011. Heard Shri Raghav Prasad No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3/B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4/State. While invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of pre and post retiral benefits under different heads amounting to Rs. nearly 11 lacs to the petitioner. As per pleading, the petitioner retired with effect from 30.6.2005, while working as a Reader in the department of Urdu in R.C. College, Sakra, Muzaffarpur. 2 At the very outset, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/University that neither in the writ petition, there is any averment as to whether the petitioner had demanded justice or not nor any document has been brought on record to show that he ever approached the authority concerned regarding his claim. It was further asserted that in the writ petition, there is no averment as to under which head, there are dues. Shri Raghav Prasad No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while replying to preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, submits that for the purpose of filing a writ petition, there is no requirement of filing any representation. It was also argued that filing of representation would be meaningless and as such the objection raised by learned counsel for the University is not sustainable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the averments made in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the court is of the opinion that there is no specific averment as to under which head, there are pre 3 and post retiral dues. While filing a writ petition, it is necessary to make specific statement giving detail of claim in the writ petition. Besides this, the court is of the opinion that while approaching this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of mandamus, it is must to first demand justice and in absence of such demand, it would be appropriate to refrain from passing any favourable order. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as in view of averment made in the writ petition, the court is of the opinion that no favourable order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. The petition stands rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to first approach the authority concerned and make specific claim and if it is not fulfilled, then he will be at liberty to approach this Court. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)