IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11861 of 2006 Sudhir Kumar, son of Late Nand Lal Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Gola Road at and P.S. Danapur, District-Patna ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat,Patna 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms , Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat,Patna ---------------------------- Respondents ----------- 03 13-04-2011 Heard Sri Alok Kumar Sinha no.1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gautam Bose, learned A.A.G. no.8. In the present case, peculiar relief has been sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner, who retired with effect from 3.1.2004 from the State of Bihar, has made a prayer for declaration that his services may be treated till 31.10.2006. After bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar in view of the provisions contained in Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000,the petitioner’s name was considered for allocation of his service to the State of Jharkhand vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the petitioner been allowed to join Jharkhand, he would have retired after attaining the age of 60 years. That benefit was denied by not allowing the petitioner to join the Jharkhand State and, as such, the petitioner was entitled to retire after completing the age of 60 years. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.3/the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Sri Gautam 2 Bose , learned A.A.G. No.8 has drawn my attention to Annexure- A to the counter affidavit, which is a representation filed by the petitioner before the State Advisory Board, in which he had requested not to allocate his cadre to the State of Jharkhand. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that before his relieve from the State of Bihar for State of Jharkhand and also during the pendency of the petitioner’s representation, he attained his age of retirement and on 3.1.2004 he superannuated .Accordingly, it has been submitted that the claim of the petitioner is totally untenable and the writ petition is fit to be rejected. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made a hyper- technical claim, which cannot be adjudicated in his favour. It was the petitioner, who himself represented for not relieving from the State of Bihar and, as such, the petitioner has rightly retired after attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 3.1.2004.There is no material in the writ petition for passing any favourable order. Accordingly,the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)