IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.586 of 2011 In C. REV. 55 of 2010 Devender Roy @ Devendra Roy S/o Sri Dukhan Roy, resident of Kannulal Road, Gauriyamath, PS Jakkanpur, District Patna .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. 2. Patna Municipal Corporation having its office at Budhmarg near GPO, PS Kotwali, Patna through Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation. 3. Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budhmarg near GPO, PS Kotwali, Patna. 4. Additional Commissioner, establishment, Patna Municipal Corporation having its office Budhmarg near GPO, PS Kotwali, Patna 5. Additional Commissioner cum Chief Account Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, having its office Budhmarg near GPO, PS Kotwali, Patna .... .... Respondents -------------- 2 28-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation. Civil Review no. 55/2010 has been dismissed by the order under appeal dated 25-08-2010 because the prayer made by the writ petitioner in his writ petition bearing CWJC no. 11299/ 2007 was allowed by the writ court on 26-09-2008 and the petitioner was granted benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000- 16,500/-. After receiving the retiral benefits etc. on the basis of order of the writ court, the petitioner filed the review petition in the year 2010 taking a plea that under Patna Regional Patna High Court LPA No.586 of 2011 (2) dt.28-07-2011 2 Development Authority, another statutory body which has merged into the Patna Municipal Corporation, the pay scale approved for Chief Accounts Officer was higher, that is, of Rs. 14,300- 18,300. The petitioner has claimed that such resolution of Patna Regional Development Authority was not in his knowledge and, hence, on coming to know of this fact, he acquired the right to file a review petition which should have been allowed. On considering the relevant facts and rival submissions, we are of the considered view that once relief prayed for was allowed by the writ court, no review petition was maintainable for claiming another relief even on the basis of alleged discovery of new materials. Here the principle governing issuance of writ would apply and the appellant was required to make a demand before the authorities and only in case it was denied or denied wrongly, he can acquire right to seek further remedy. In our view, the writ court has rightly rejected the review petition. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise a claim before the authorities on the basis of all the grounds raised in support of the review petition and if his claim is not accepted, he may seek his remedy through appropriate Patna High Court LPA No.586 of 2011 (2) dt.28-07-2011 3 proceeding in accordance with law. Since the appellant is a retired employee, if he makes a demand that should be considered in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably, within four months. Bimalanshu Kumar Singh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)