Tej Narayan Sahu v. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9850 of 2021 ====================================================== Tej Narayan Sahu S/O Nasib Lal Sahu R/O Village - Bhutaha, P.S. - Laukahi, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Vice - Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 4.

The Registrar, B.N. Mandal, University, Madhepura. 5.

The Principal, Hari Prasad Sah College, Nirmali, District- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, AC to GA-XII ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2022 The case is being taken up from defect side.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today.

The petitioner admittedly retired in the year 2010. He states that he filed a writ petition before the Court earlier for the same relief bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17627 of 2016, which was dismissed as default on 03.12.2018 and no restoration petition was filed.

It is stated that the relief was later on granted to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2021(2) dt.30-06-2022 2/2 petitioner and benefit of 1st A.C.P, 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd A.C.P has also been granted. However, in the present petition, he claims that he is entitled for pay-scale of 4000-6000 w.e.f. 1.4.1997. This Court finds that the claim was earlier also raised in the said writ petition regarding granting of 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 1.4.1997 in the Pay-scale of 4000-6000, instead of 3050-4590. Consecutive writ petition for the same purpose cannot be allowed to be filed. No attempt was made to restore the earlier writ petition.

Second writ petition is not admissible.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 32 U