IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.752 of 2011 Yogendra Thakur Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2 24.6.2011 Persistent and continuous litigation by itself may not be good enough for the petitioner to beget the kind of relief he is seeking even in the present writ application. There is long story in the sense that the petitioner was appointed as a peon under the respondent State of Bihar in the Department of Tube-well Division of Samastipur. The said appointment was made on 11.6.1967 and he superannuated on the said post on 31.1.2009. No dispute exists on this factual position. May be due to urgency of service or due to vacancy of the post of typist existing at the relevant time petitioner was allowed or offered to work in the capacity of a typist and he remained on the post of typist from 13.4.1989 to 20.6.1994 though there is some dispute with regard to this period which will be taken note of subsequently. There is evidence to show that when the authority put the petitioner back on the original post of peon he took a chance by approaching the High Court for payment of salary of typist and regularizing him as a typist. Such effort did not beget him any fruitful result for the obvious reason because there is no direct chain of promotion to the post of typist from the post of peon. Then in second round of litigation he claimed that he should be paid salary for the period he worked as a typist. Certain - 2 - documents were annexed in support of his assertion as well as the period for which work was taken from him. Based on those materials though not fully convinced the Court allowed the petitioner to approach the respondents by way a direction issued on 3.8.2010 in the writ application filed by the petitioner in the year 1996. The said order is annexure-10 to the present writ application. Matter was examined and vide order dated 18.11.2010 (annexure-12) the claim of the petitioner has been rejected which has become the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. Besides what has been stated in the impugned order the State in the counter affidavit has categorically stated that the petitioner on his volition was directed to work as a typist with clear understanding that he shall not demand or beget anything more than the salary of peon on which he was appointed. This fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and he accepted the posting at the relevant time without any protest. After many years he is not satisfied with the salary on the post of peon. No doubt the Court had observed in annexure-10 that there are certain circumstances to show that the petitioner had worked on a post of typist for 4 to 5 years but all these materials stated in counter affidavit have not emerged in the earlier writ application. If the petitioner accepted the position on a clear understanding as to what he was entitled to then it is not open to - 3 - him to claim something now more so when the superior authority gave clear direction to get rid of the arrangement soon thereafter. No right existed in favour of the petitioner to beget the benefit of pay in the circumstances he worked as a typist in certain controversial circumstances. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)