IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14560 of 2009 Udayeshwar Sharma, son of late Sheodutt Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Sheikhpura, P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna - --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi-cum- The Director General, Department of Posts, New Nelhi-110001. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna 800001 3. The Chief Post Master, Patna G.P.O., Patna-800001. 4. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. ------ Respondents. ----------- 4. 23.2.2010 Heard Mr. B.K. Shukla for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.5.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 756 of 2002 (Udyeshwar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others), whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s prayer to step up his pay on par with his junior, Jagdish Mahto. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner and one Jagdish Mahto were together promoted to HSG II grade simultaneously with effect from 2 1.11.1991, vide order dated 5.9.1992. The petitioner exercised the option to draw his pay of HSG II grade with effect from the date of promotion, and not from the date of next increment. On the other hand, Jagdish Mahto, opted to draw his pay with effect from the date of the next increment. This resulted in different payments, and incidentally the salary of Jagdish Mahto perhaps became higher. The petitioner earlier challenged the same by preferring O.A. No. 724 of 2000, which was disposed of by order dated 29.9.2000, and the Chief Post Master General was directed to dispose of the petitioner’s claim by a reasoned order. The same was rejected by a reasoned order dated 11/12.10.2001, leading to the present O.A. No. 756 of 2002. The learned Tribunal has concluded as follows: “11. Coming to the facts of this case, we find that both the applicant and his junior were promoted by the same order (copy not on record). While the applicant exercised an option to have his pay fixed on the date of promotion, his junior decided to have his pay fixed from the date of increment. The circular referred to by the respondents shows that options once exercised is final. This circular is not on record. Extracts of FR quoted above support this view. The circular cited by the applicant has no application to the facts of this case.” 3 It is thus evident that the differences in salary and emoluments of the petitioner and Jagdish Mahto have been on account of different options exercised by them which are entirely on their volitions. The impugned order can not be faulted. Before we part with the records, we can not help observing that the Indian Judicial system is under the load of unbearable pendency of cases like present one. The present petitioner does not seem to rest till such time he succeeded. It appears that the retired employees were often than not take litigations as post-retirement assignments. Consequent upon the option of the petitioner the decision of the department vide letter dated 29.1.1994/ 10.2.1994, was conveyed to the petitioner while he was still in service. He had adequate opportunity to raise his grievance while in service. He superannuated and filed O.A. No.724 of 2000. In other words, his claims have been examined by the Tribunal in the original application, thereafter by the Chief Post Master General, and again by the Tribunal once again in the present application. We feel very unhappy at such an approach. 4 In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)