IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.871 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11824 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Basudeo Prasad, S/O Late Sri Ram Das Rai, R/O Mohalla-South Mandri (Kath Ka Pool),P.S. Budha Colony,District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Special Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department Of Industry, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat Building,Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director ,Industry,Govt. Of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Deputy Director,Department Of Industry,Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Industry Department,Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr S. Rahman, AC to GA 4 ====================================================== 3 24-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Also perused the order under appeal whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed after giving reasons as to why his claim for pension could not be allowed. The Writ Court has placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Birendra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 630 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances.The finding of the Writ Court is that since the appellant did not serve for the minimum period of 10 years Patna High Court LPA No.871 of 2010 (3) dt.24-11-2011 2 with the Government, he was not entitled for counting service rendered in a Corporation for the purpose of pension. The Writ Court has further noticed at page 14 of the order under appeal that the petitioner did not challenge the order for rejecting his pension claim passed on 20.12.1996. He did not raise any claim for pension in an earlier writ petition which was admittedly filed by the appellant in the year 2000 raising a grievance that proceeds of contributory provident fund paid to him suffered from calculation mistake. The appeal arising out of earlier writ petition was also disposed of long back in 2004. In our considered view, after receiving all the retiral benefits under the Corporation including that of contributory provident fund and when he raised no claim for pension at the initial stage, the appellant cannot be permitted to approach this Court for claiming reliefs in piecemeal manner. We find no illegality in the order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)