Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh @ Shashi Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4052 of 2025 ====================================================== Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh @ Shashi Bhushan Singh Son of Late Virendra Singh, Resident of Village- Kansara, Police Station- Mejorganj, DistrictSitamarhi, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Sitamarhi. 2.

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 3.

The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi.

4.

The Deputy Collector Treasury, Sitamarhi.

5.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, District- Sitamarhi. 6.

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhusudan Rai, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ram Yash Singh, GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-03-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to make fixation of the pay scale on account of benefit of 3rd A.C.P. and revised pay scale from the date of entitlement i.e., 24.01.1995 and also to make payment of differences of salary with statutory interest. Learned Counsel has further made prayer to direct the respondents to make payment of benefit on account of fixation of pay scale with 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd A.C.P. respectively, and also make

Patna High Court CWJC No.4052 of 2025(2) dt.17-03-2025 2/2 payment of month of January, 2010 and February, 2010 and also to make payment of other retiral benefits as the petitioner is legally entitled in the eye of law.

3. Learned Counsel for the State has raised preliminary objection and submits that from the pleading made in paragraph-12, it becomes crystal clear that petitioner after his retirement filed writ petition bearing CWJC No.4981 of 2018, which was withdrawn on the ground that grievances of the petitioner has been redressed, but he has moved before this Court again after lapse of about ten years.

4. In the light of the facts circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition due to the reason that the petitioner had moved earlier and pleaded that his grievance has been settled and further after lapse of about ten years he has filed fresh writ petition, which is not entertainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U