IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.865 of 2009 Dr. Harendra Kishore Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 24.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was in the teaching side of the Health Department. He retired as Adhoc Professor as Head of the Department, Patna Medical College Hospital in the Department of Eye, in the year 1999. His grievance is that though he continued on the post of Professor, Department of Eye, Patna Medical College Hospital, since 1988, but was not allowed the monetary benefits, attached to the post, till the date of his retirement. He was paid his salary, admissible to the Associate Professor and, accordingly, his pension and pensionary benefits have been fixed. On perusal of the different documents annexed with the Writ Application, it transpires that regular promotion was given to the petitioner as Professor vide notification dated 25.04.1998 and he was transferred from the Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Lehariasaria, as Professor, Department of 2 Health. Petitioner challenged that order on the ground that since he is going to retire on 31st of January, 1999, his transfer from Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital is against the policy decision of the State Government. The Writ Application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8816 of 1998 filed by the petitioner was allowed vide Order dated 06.08.1998 and the transfer order of the petitioner was set aside. There is no statement in the present Writ Application that thereafter any notification was issued in favour of the petitioner, promoting him to the post of Professor and Head of the Eye Department in Patna Medical College Hospital. Petitioner, since retired as an Adhoc Professor from the regular post of Associate Professor, he can not claim any monetary benefit, attached to the post of Professor of the Head of Department of any Medical College, otherwise I do not find that the petitioner after his retirement in the year 1999 quite satisfied and remain silent till the year, 2009. After much delay, he has filed this Writ Application in the year 2009. The maintainability of the Writ Application is also 3 being challenged by the Counsel, appearing for the State on the ground of delay. On both the counts, I do not find any merit in this Writ Application. It is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)