IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21114 of 2018 ====================================================== Sanjay Sharma @ Sharma Sanjay S/o Late Sachidanand Sharma R/o Village Ahiai,P.S. Rajapakar,Distt.-Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Fishery Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Joint Director,Fishery Department,Bihar,Patna 3. The District Magistrate,Motihari 4. The District Fishery Officer,Motihari 5. The Chief Executive Officer,Fishery Department,Bettiah 6. The Accountant General A and E,Bihar,Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to SC-25 For the Accountant General : Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12 20-03-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is the son of the erstwhile employee, who had approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to ensure payment of all the retiral benefits of his father, in addition to the amount of first time bound promotion with the penal interest, in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2018) 2 PLJR 929, as well as, in view of the State Litigation Policy, especially Clause 4 (c) (i), thereof. 3. At the outset, learned Advocate for the State made Patna High Court CWJC No.21114 of 2018(12) dt.20-03-2025 2/3 preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that earlier, the father of the petitioner had also come before this Court in CWJC No. 3727 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 03.11.2014, after giving proper hearing to the petitioner and on being found that his father “Sachidanand Sharma” died on 29.11.2013, held that except General Provident Fund amount, he is not entitled to get any other benefit. 4. Aggrieved with the aforenoted order, LPA No. 889 of 2016 was preferred, which also came to be dismissed. Thereupon, a Civil Review No. 540 of 2016 was filed, which also resulted into same fate on 01.11.2017. After exhausting all the remedy, again with respect to the same relief, the petitioner has approached this Court, which is not at all maintainable. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the State, this Court finds substance that for the same cause of action, a person cannot be permitted to re- agitate the matter, time and again, when in the earlier round of litigation, the lis has already been adjudicated and given a quietus. Patna High Court CWJC No.21114 of 2018(12) dt.20-03-2025 3/3 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. shivank/- (Harish Kumar, J) U