IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2175 of 2009 RAJNANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The grievance with regard to pay fixation on the post made in the year 1970 and its consequential benefit on account of fresh appointment of the petitioner in the year 1978 is definitely misconceived, inasmsuch as it is not requirement of fundamental Rule 22 or Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code that such pay fixation has to be made as a matter of course. In fact for that purpose the appointment letter of the year 1978 of the petitioner on the post of PATROL has to contain a clause with regard to benefit of past services. The moment it is accepted that his appointment in the year 1978 as a PATROL was a fresh appointment he cannot claim pay fixation on the basis of his getting higher pay as claimed. That being so, neither on merits nor even otherwise this writ application filed in the year 2009 for a cause of action of the year 1978 can be entertained by this Court. 2 The counsel for the petitioner then contends that there is another grievance of the petitioner namely, that he has not been paid his increment from the year 1998. The representation enclosed with the writ petition however does not reflect that the petitioner had ever raised his aforesaid grievance before the appropriate authority. Thus for that part of the grievance, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ application in as much as a writ of mandamus can only be issued when a person pertaining to a legal right has already raised such claim before the authority which may have been either impliedly or expressly rejected. As a matter of fact there is also no prayer to this effect in this writ petition. That being so, this application is even in respect of the grievance of increment is totally misconceived and must be dismissed. The dismissal of the writ application however will not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the authority for grant of increment which is said to have not been paid to him from the year 1998. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/