IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20553 of 2010 Binod Kumar Mishra S/O Late Diwakar Mishra R/O Vill.-Kanhauli, P.O.-Kanhauli, P.S.- Manigachhi, Distt.-Darbhanga. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Industries Department, New Secretariat, Patna-800001. 2. Special Secretary, Industries Deptt., New Secretariat, Patna-1. 3. Chairman, Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation Litd. A- Block, 5th Floor, Mauryalok Complex, Patna-1. 4. Managing Director, Bihar Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation Ltd. A-Block, 5th Floor, Mauryalok Complex, Patna-1. …………. Respondents with CWJC No.20852 of 2010 Indu Bhooshan, s/o- Late Shyam Narayan Thakur, r/o- mohalla Post Office- Shivpuri, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna. ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation through its Managing Director, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. ………… Respondents with CWJC No.6340 of 2011 Vidyankar Pathak, s/o- Late Prabhashankar Pathak, r/o- mohalla Gaighat, P.O.- Guljarbagh, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna. ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation through its Managing Director, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Pharmaceutical & Chemical Development Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. ……….. Respondents For the petitioner (C.W.J.C. No. 20553/10): Mr. Vivek Nand Kumar For the petitioner(C.W.J.C. No. 6340 of 20110) : Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. A.D. Dubey, A.C. to A.A.G.-4. ----------- 4 04.07.2011 In all these applications, petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent No. 4 (Managing Director, Bihar State Pharmaceuticals and 2 Chemical Development Corporation Ltd, Patna) to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, paragraph No. 6 of whereof reads as under: “ 6. That in view of the annexure 5, 5A, 6, ,7 and 10 of the writ application several orders on this point have been passed by this Hon'ble Court in several cases of the Corporation Employees and likewise petitioners be allowed to continue in the service till the age of 60 years.” Petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 8453 of 2009 (Nageshwar Maharaj versus The Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation and Anr) in which this Court directed for consideration of the matter and submitted that the present applications be disposed of in the light of order passed in the case of Nageshwar Maharaj. Counter affidavits have been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 20553 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 20852 of 2010. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 which run thus: “7. That the issue involved in the case was come up for the consideration once again in CWJC No. 11208 of 2009 in case of Subedar Singh which was heard and dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 12.07.2010. 8. That the said of direction in meeting held on 27.7.2007 resolved but the extend the age of its employees from 58 to 60 years as the 3 Corporation not able to earn the benefits. “ Relying on two orders of this Court contained in Annexures- A and B, it is submitted that the matter is no longer res integra. At least on two occasions after considering submissions of the parties, this Court refused to grant the aforesaid relief. Relying on order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11208 of 2009 (Annexure-B), it is submitted that the order passed in the case of Nageshwar Maharaj(supra) was also taken into account while disposing of the said application refusing to grant relief to the petitioner. Having heard the parties and on going through materials on record, this Court is of the view that the prayer made in these applications was considered by a Bench of this Court at least on two occasions and the relief was declined as would appear from Annexures-A and B of the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief(s). The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)