IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.164 of 2006 BALESHWAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 03/ 22.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This case has a chequered history. Earlier the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1243 of 1999 for adding and including the due increments of salary, which has been denied to the petitioner with effect from 08th September, 1986 on the ground that the petitioner had not cleared the departmental examination and the said benefits cannot be granted to the petitioner since he had retired on 30.06.1996. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 25.09.2003 with an observation that the said authorities are still required to pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner on 24.04.1990 for exempting him from appearing in the departmental examination and if the said application is allowed with effect from the date of application then the petitioner would be entitled to get increment for the last five years, if the said application is rejected then that would be end of the matter, but in any case, order on the said application has to be passed by the departmental head. 4. It transpires that in compliance of the said order of this court, the departmental head, namely, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of Public Health and Engineering Department considered the matter and rejected the said application of the petitioner vide Memo No.807 dated 06.02.2004. It further transpires that while passing the said order, the authority concerned had considered the relevant provisions also. 5. Against the said order, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 9041 of 2 2004, which was rejected by a Bench of this court vide order dated 24.07.2006 on the ground that the petitioner is seeking to contend that he having been transferred frequently within a period of five years was prevented from appearing in the examination. It was also held that transfer is a consequence of Government Service and it cannot be treated as work pressure preventing the petitioner from appearing in the examination. This court also found that it was not the contention of the petitioner that before he attained fifty years of age for the last five years there had been no examination, hence there was no scope of interference with the impugned order passed by the said authority of the department. 6. The said order is sought to be reviewed in this petition. It may be noted in this connection that the application for exemption was filed on 24.04.1990 by the petitioner but the affidavit filed by the petitioner did not disclose that apart from one attempt the petitioner made any other attempt to pass such examination before filing the said application. Hence, the said order was quite legal and justified fully considering all the relevant aspects of the matter. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor any fresh material has been produced, which was not available to the petitioner earlier, nor even this court finds any reason to review the said order and take a different view, other than what had been taken in the order under review. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)