IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10163 of 2005 Krishna Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Kedar Prasad, Resident of Kumar Bhawan, Thakurbari Road, South Postal-Park, P.S. Kankarbagh, in the town and district of Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 3. District Co-operative Officer, Giridih, District Giridih. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. 5. Block Development Officer, Birni Block District Giridih (Jharkhand). --------- Respondents ----------- 2 4.1.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to the following effect:- “1. That the instant writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned to pay the difference of salary on account of second time bound promotion with effect from 3.4.89 which has been given/allowed vide order no. 685 dated 31.1.2001 passed by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, respondent no.2 contained in Annexure-1 along with statutory/penal interest thereon till the date of payment.” Counsel for the State with reference to 2 the aforementioned prayer has invited attention of this Court towards paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “6. That the Co-operative Department, Bihar vide Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna letter no. 4201 dated 22.9.2005 along with a copy of order no. 685 dated 31.1.2000 has ordered B.D.O. Birni (Giridih) to pay the claim of the petitioner on account of arrear of salary due to the petitioner as he was promoted since 3/4/1989.” The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to such counter affidavit though a supplementary affidavit has been filed on 1st of May, 2007. In the said supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has accepted the fact with regard to the redressal of his grievance as raised in the writ application but then he has also tried to expand the scope of relief by claiming the benefit of ACP with effect from 9.8.1999. This issue of ACP having been not raised in the main writ application, the respondents were not supposed to answer the same and in fact, in view of the stand taken by the respondents in paragraph no.6 of their counter affidavit, this writ application 3 has become infructuous. That being so, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous with a liberty to the petitioner to claim the benefit of ACP in accordance with law. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)