IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1440 of 2001 Rameshwar Pandey, S/o late Mahangu Pandey, Village- Pakri Mishrain, P.O. Bairiya, P.S. Kateya, Distt. Gopalganj, presently residing at F-103, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna 800020. ... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner- cum Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Finance (Bureau of Public Enterprises), Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Patna. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City, Patna. 5. The Block Development Officer, Fatuha, Distt. Patna. 6. The Circle Officer, Fatuha, District- Patna. 7. The Sub-Treasury Officer, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Patna City, Path Pramandal, Path Nirman Vibhag, Tulsi Mandi, Gulzarbagh, Patna-7. 9. Patna Industrial Area Development Authority through its Chairman, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. 10. The Managing Director, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800004. 11. The Secretary, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800004. 12. The Collector, Patna District, Patna. ... Respondents. ----------- 06- 20.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.16. The appellant was an employee of the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’). He was initially posted at Patna and was transferred 2 to Fatuah. He challenged his order of transfer which was dismissed by this Court. He then submitted a representation before the Managing Director to permit him to continue to retain the quarter in Patna. The same was rejected by the Managing Director of the Authority by his order dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) on the ground that residential accommodation was freely available at Fatuah. Permission was declined to retain the official accommodation in Patna. The appellant challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.4857 of 2001, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 7.5.2001. The appellant thereafter filed review application which was also rejected by the same learned Single Judge by his order dated 2.11.2001, passed in Civil Review No.87 of 2001. He challenged all the three orders by preferring the present appeal, which was lodged in this Court on 3.12.2001. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant superannuated with effect from 31.1.1994, yet he is persisting with the protracted litigation. We express our strong displeasure on the appellant’s conduct in burdening this Court with most 3 unwanted matters. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge that the rules of the State Government do not straightway apply to the employees of the Authority. Secondly, even if it were applicable it needs permission of the Authority and can, inter alia, be granted in a situation if the residential accommodation is not available at the place of transfer. In the present case, the Managing Director of the Authority has clearly stated in his order that residential accommodation was freely available at Fatuah and there was no justification to allow him to retain the Government quarter in Patna. Indeed the order of the Managing Director was passed much after the appellant’s retirement, notwithstanding which he is persisting with this matter to the utter harassment of this Court. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/