IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3219 of 2004 ============================================= Phulchand Choudhary, s/o- Late Karu Chaudhary, at present Sectional Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Mangles Road, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Housing Board,, Patna through its Managing Director, 6, Mangles Road, Patna. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Mangles Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh, Mr. Prakash Shekhar Kumar ============================================= 9 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Housing Board. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure-5) petitioner approached this Court raising a grievance that he has been reverted to the post of Assistant although similarly placed another employee of the respondent Board was not reverted to the post of Assistant. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as Correspondence Clerk in the Bihar State Housing Board (for short “ the Board”). Subsequently, he was considered and appointed by way of promotion as Assistant by order dated 5.8.1983 (Annexure- 1). It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 4.1.1994 (Annexure-3), the Managing Director of the respondent Board on restructuring of the office, directed the petitioner to function as Incharge Section Officer of Section-6. Subsequently, by order dated 3.3.2004, he has been reverted to the original post of Assistant on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post considering the inter se seniority of the employees as well as the roster for the post in question. It is admitted position that during the pendency of this application, the petitioner has superannuated from service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was reverted by the order impugned whereas another employee namely Ram Bilash Das who was appointed as Assistant after the petitioner vide order contained in Annexure-2 was retained as the Incharge Section Officer. The grievance, therefore, is that although he was holding the post on Incharge basis, the authority could not have reverted him to the post of Assistant while retaining some other employees similarly placed. Unfortunately, the aforesaid employee has not been made party to the present proceeding. The petitioner is not raising a grievance with respect to his claim to hold the post on substantive basis. On the contrary, the submission is that his reversion to his original/substantive post of Assistant was made whereas another employee was allowed to hold the post on Incharge basis. By the impugned order, the petitioner has only been reverted to the post of Assistant and there is no claim for consideration and grant of promotion on the post of Section Officer on substantive basis. In my view, the application has become infructuous. Learned counsel submits that petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary of the post which he held admittedly for 10 years. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that for the said relief, the petitioner had already moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12073 of 2003 and by an order dated 11.3.2005 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), this Court disposed of the matter directing the petitioner to make representation in this regard. The authorities after considering the claim of the petitioner passed an order as contained in Annexure-B dated 23.8.2008 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit). Said order is not under challenge in the present proceeding. The said grievance of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be considered and allowed. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is inclined to dismiss the application. I order accordingly. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)