IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4802 of 2011 Anil Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 26.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has liberty to litigate in the manner which he wants but the Court does not have freedom to permit him such liberty because of judicial adjudication made in the past. Petitioner was before the High Court earlier in CWJC No. 6160 of 2001. That order against the petitioner is Annexure-1 to the writ application. No relief as such was granted by the Bench except allowing the matter to be considered by certain authorities. When a contempt application namely, MJC No. 2714 of 2007 was filed, the same was dismissed by making an observation that the Director, Administration cum Joint Secretary, Human Resources Department has already passed an order contained in Memo No.664 dated 15.4.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Contempt was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding. This order was passed on 21.12.2009. There is nothing on record to show that even a feeble attempt was made to assail that order before any forum much less the present writ application. 2 One of the reasons why petitioner seems to have been emboldened to approach the High Court again without stating these facts in the writ application is that in a similar circumstance some employees got the benefit of a particular pay-scale which the petitioner is looking for and that order was affirmed by the Division Bench. The order of the Division Bench or the learned Single Judge would apply to the petitioners who were before the respective Benches. If the petitioner had not approached the High Court earlier on the issue and no adjudication was made then there may have been an occasion to draw analogy and apply the reasoning given therein. But since the fate of the petitioner had already been charted out by the judicial pronouncements both by Annexure 1 and 2, therefore, unless the reasoned order dated 15.4.2008 is assailed and set aside, he will not get the benefit of either learned Single Judge’s order or the Division Bench. In fact, petitioner ought to have been more cautious in making assertions and averments in the writ application and non-disclosure of these facts in that sense in so may words is not viewed encouragingly by this Court. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)