IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4048 of 2006 Shri (Dr.)Jitendra Kumar Sinha, S/o-Late Mahesh Chandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Katthak Tal Nanmuhia, Shershah Road, P.O.-Gulzarbagh, Patna-7, (Retired Lecturer from the Department of Psychology, S.M.D. College, Poonpoon, Patna). –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. 3. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya. 4. The Secretary, Higher Education, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Principal, S.M.D. College, Poonpoon, Patna. –Respondents. ----------- 11 16.05.2011 The petitioner was appointed as Technician/ Demonstrator at Gaya College on 25.01.1965, a constituent College of Magadh University. On 07.01.1978 he joined as Lecturer in S.M.D. College, Punpun, which was also a constituent unit of Magadh University. On 19.10.1978 he was terminated and on 20.10.1978 he was reverted back to the post of Demonstrator in Gaya College with effect from 07.01.1979. He was again appointed and absorbed as Lecturer in S.M.D. College, Punpun. Petitioner ultimately retried from University service on 31.07.2000. He filed this writ petition on 27.03.2006 with a prayer that the respondents should fix his salary and pensionary benefits and pay them after reckoning the total length of service from 25.01.1965 and not from 1982. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated by the University that petitioner had earlier moved in writ petition in the year 2003 and has also moved in contempt proceedings for his payments. Petitioner has not disclosed this fact in the writ petition. Upon directions of the Court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed acknowledging that petitioner had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No.3148/2003 - 2 - for fixing his retiral dues and payment thereof. The said writ petition was disposed of by a general order dated 02.12.2005. There being non-compliance, petitioner had filed a contempt application whereafter his pensionary dues were settled from 1982. In my view, the present writ petition is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. As seen above, petitioner had superannuated in the year 2000. He had filed writ petition in 2003. A copy of the writ petition has also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit, which had specifically not raised these grievances at all, which he seeks to raise now. He sought disposal of the writ petition in general terms without adjudication. Now, he wants to agitate the matter on fresh ground. That cannot be permitted. It is well established that an issue which ought to be raised or could have been raised is deemed to have been raised. This is the principle of constructive res judicata. This application is dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)