IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5479 of 2010 1. BIJAY SHANKAR SINGH S/O SRI RAM PYARE SINHA R/O VILLAGE - SHANKARDIH, P.O - SHANKARDIH, P.S - PARWALPUR, DISTRICT - NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, PATNA 3. THE JUDGE IN CHARGE (ADMINISTRATION) NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. 4. THE REGISTRAR CIVIL COURT, BIHARSHARIF (NALANDA). ----------- 02. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2005 rejecting his request to be shifted to the Clerk cadre from that of Stenographer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Clerk originally in 1981. He has discharged duties as a Clerk also. Those in the cadre of Clerks have got benefit of A.C.P. from 1.8.1999. Learned counsel for the State points out that the petitioner was well aware since 17.5.2005 that his claim had been rejected, yet he never question the same till he has filed the present application belatedly. The order of rejection also noticed that he had availed benefits in the cadre of Stenographer of time bound promotion. The petitioner has also been granted A.C.P. 2 benefits as Stenographer after attaining age of 50 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those benefits have been granted to him wrongly and he is willing to return those benefits, if he is appropriately considered for the post of Clerk. It is not in controversy that the post of Clerk and Stenographer carry the same pay-scale. If the petitioner has availed monetary benefits of the post of Stenographer and has not questioned the impugned order dated 17.5.2005 for nearly five long years, he cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. Additionally is also the question of long delay for which there is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition except a pleading that he has represented in 2005 itself against the impugned order. Whether it be on merit or delay, the Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)