IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14510 of 2009 1. DHIRENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE MAHESHWAR PRASAD YADAV VILL& P.O MANIKPUR, P.S & DISTT- MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHEPURA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, MADHEPURA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT MADHEPURA COLLECTORATE, MADHEPURA 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, NAZARAT MADHEPURA COLLECTORATE, MADHEPURA ----------- 2. 16.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was daily wage appointee on a Class IV post in Madhepura Collectorate. He came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 13764 of 2006 which was disposed off with a batch of cases directing consideration of his claims for regularisation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid applications his contention was that his name was already existing in the panel for regular appointment on Class IV and therefore there was no occasion for the Court to give direction for consideration of his case for regularisation by a three men committee. The judgement of this Court in CWJC No. 13764 of 2006 was delivered on 7.2.2007. The claim of the petitioner has now been rejected by the three men committee in Misc. Case No. 1207 of 2007 on 19.3.2009. The petitioner has suffered the judgement of this Court. He did not challenge the directions given earlier. He took a chance. After the order adverse has been passed he now seeks to challenge the same order from which he expected certain benefits. In (2005) 1 SCC 13 (Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vrs State Bank of India & anr.), punishment was imposed on a delinquent in a departmental proceeding. In appeal the punishment was alleged to be severe. The appellate authority however proposed to enhance the punishment and show cause notice was directed to be issued. The delinquent submitted his reply. The punishment was enhanced. Against the same a writ petition was filed inter alia contending that the appeal filed by him was beyond time and should have therefore been dismissed. The Court held that this ground was not available to him now. Likewise in AIR 1975 SC 1058 (Rani Inder Kumari Vrs State of Rajasthan), the Supreme Court held as follows at paragraph 10:- “10. The petitioners cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Right to the compensation, of whatever nature or content, flowed from the abolition of the cash jagirs under the Act. Acceptance of the compensation under the Act for the full length of the period of twelve years completely negatives the scope of attack upon the abolition of the grant. The foundation of the compensation is the abolition of the cash jagirs. Section 3 (2) under which the compensation is available is integrally connected with Section 3 (1) which has abolished the cash jagirs from a specified date and it is only on such abolition that compensation is rendered possible. Acceptance of compensation, therefore, gives a quietus to the claim to have the Act adjudged as ultra vires. The petitioners cannot eat a cake and have it. At any rate the petitioners have approached the court after inordinate delay and even then after enjoying the full benefit under the Act. The petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained.” Alternatively in view of nature of the claim and the order of this Court, this Court finds no serious contradiction between the two to warrant any interference. In the entirety of the matter this Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)