IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15491 of 2005 SHIVJEE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 24.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Court fails to understand the basis or the legal ground on which the petitioner can claim the benefit of salary etc. with effect from 3.2.1994 which has been refused by the respondents in the fact and circumstances of the case indicated in the order dated 13.9.2006 which has been annexed as annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Whatever be the background and whatever be the battle the petitioner had fought, the facts stand that the petitioner had not appointed and his name was not recommended for appointment at the relevant time. In the second time over the respondents took a compassionate view of the matter and keeping in the mind the observation of the High Court, decided to push back his date of appointment to 3.2.1994 even though he was substantially appointed on 11.9.1997. The petitioner should be more than happy to have acquired his parity with other persons who were recommended earlier for appointment. There is no occasion for this Court to give any direction in favour of the petitioner for the reason indicated in Annexure-E This writ application is misplaced in the background under which annexure-E has come to be passed. It is dismissed accordingly. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)