IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3517 of 2003 JAILAGAN SINGH, son of late Ram Swaroop Singh, permanent resident of village Mokhtarpur, P.O. & P.S. Mahnar, District Vaishali, presently residing at the house of Sri Yadavendra Pd.Singh, Advocate, Mohalla & P.O. Kashipur, P.S. Samastipur Town, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Samastipur 5. The Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Circle, Samastipur 6. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Samastipur 7. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Dalsingsarai,District Samastipur … Respondents. ----------- 6. 24.7.2009 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Every good thing must be come to an end and so do also this litigation. The petitioner initially engaged as a Work Sarkar in the year 1955 was removed from service in the year 1959 and thereafter he came to be reinstated in service with back wages in terms of the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner had certain grievance as with regard to the benefit of reinstatement and he also wanted promotion on the ground that the persons 2 junior or similarly situated were given such promotion. This Court, however, did not accept this plea and had merely directed the respondents to consider for a notional benefit and also considering time bound promotion if the petitioner was not given such promotion. The respondents had thereafter complied the order of this Court but the petitioner was again not satisfied and he had filed a contempt application. That contempt application was dismissed with a liberty that if the petitioner had any fresh cause of action he could pursue his writ application. Today Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would again try to raise the issue of non- implementation of the award in a proper manner. If that was the case the petitioner had to take remedy under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has since retired and the counsel for the petitioner admits that all the benefits by way of implementation of the order of this Court including payment of back wages upon his reinstatement had already been made. The 3 case now, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner remains confined to retrospective promotion on the ground that the persons like him, who had remained in service, had been given such promotion. That however was neither within the scope of the award of the Labour Court nor can be expectation of the petitioner in this writ application relating to his terms of his appointment of 54 years back. The petitioner has since retired and must remain content with the strict compliance of reinstatement in service with back wages. That being so, this application must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/