IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8902 of 2005 MD.JALALUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satendra Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mrs. Punam Srivastava, Advocate ---------- 5 22.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was a PACS MANAGER where his salary and entitlement was linked with the loan collection. However, it seems during the period he worked in that capacity he had collected sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- (One Lac Twenty Seven Thousand only), but refused to deposit the same on the ground that it was part and parcel of the salary which was due and the same should be adjusted against his salary. The service condition of the PACS MANAGERs have been reasons for litigations before this High Court on many occasions. Efforts have been made by them to acquire the status of civil servant which was not so. However, by intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State of Bihar in its wisdom decided to accommodate such persons as it became a dying post, on vacant posts in various departments. Such persons had to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Cooperative Bank where they were working at the local level. 2 Petitioner made out a plea for indulgence on the ground that his financial status did not permit him to settle his dues and accounts which was coming in the way of No Objection Certificate. On a request made the authorities were indulgent enough to allow a No Objection Certificate based on which the petitioner gained employment under the State of Bihar. The No Objection Certificate, however, was conditional in the sense that the petitioner had to pay back his dues after deducting 10% of his salary and getting it remitted to the Bank. This decision was taken in the year 2002. After working on the new post under the State Government petitioner wants to shake off his past liability and that is the reason he has challenged the conditional order dated 14.10.2002 contained in Annexure – 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents where they have explained the situation. The facts which are borne out from the pleadings, which is apparent, that the respondents authorities have been indulgent to the petitioner and they have taken a charitable view of the predicament of the petitioner at the relevant time. Now, if he wants to shun his liability of the conditional No Objection Certificate, neither the law nor equity would permit him to do so. The Court is in agreement with the respondents. The writ application is a misplaced and misdirected litigation. After having 3 obtained an advantage which was granted on the prayer of the petitioner it is not open to him to challenge the same subsequently after deriving benefit from the said order. The writ application is fit to be dismissed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)