Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner was a member of Bihar Judicial service. He was compulsorily retired from service in public interest under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of Bihar Service Code, vide order dated 22nd December, 1997. It was challenged by him in C.W.J.C. No. 4715 of 1997, wherein the order was set aside by this Court on 14th December, 1999 on the ground of non-giving of three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof. The authorities were given liberty to proceed further, whereinafter three months notice was served on petitioner and on consideration of the matter, the petitioner was again compulsorily retired from service, vide impugned order dated 9th March, 2000. 2. In the present case, the petitioner has again challenged the order of compulsory retirement dated 9th March, 2000 issued under Rule 74(b) (ii) of Bihar Service Code. 3. In the writ petition, while the petitioner has pleaded the aforesaid fact, plea has been taken that the order dated 9th March, 2000 is without jurisdiction, mandatory provision of Rule 74 (a) of Bihar Service Code having not followed. 4. At the time of argument, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having not completed 25 years of service to get pension, there was no occasion to compulsorily retire the petitioner under Rule 74(b) (ii) and, in fact, the mandatory provision of Rule 74(a) should have been followed. 5. When controverted, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid issue was neither pleaded, nor argued in C.W.J.C. No. 4715 of 1997. 6. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of two different provisions laid down under Rule 74(a) and Rule 74(b) (ii) of Bihar Service Code. While provision has been made under Rule 74(a), to compulsorily retire a government servant who has completed 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service on the ground of inefficiency or conduct not such as to justify his retention under Rule 74(b) (i), read with (ii), the appointing authority giving three months notice or amount equal to three months pay and allowance in lieu of notice, can retire a Government servant in public interest, on completion of 30 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age or any date thereafter to be specific in the notice. A person is entitled for retiral benefits, including pension on such compulsory retirement has also been stipulated under Rule 74 (b) (iii) of Bihar Service Code. 7. The petitioner has wrongly pleaded that the aforesaid issue has not been decided in the earlier writ petition. This will be evident from Paragraph No. 6 and 6-A (wrongly typed as paragraph 6 second time) of judgment and order dated 14th December, 1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4715 of 1997 [reported in 2000(1) PLJR 1016 ], as quoted hereunder : "6. So far as the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the same is apparently misconceived and devoid of merit. The provisions in Rule 74 (b) (ii) & (iii) of the Code are clear and hence there is no necessity to refer to provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950 for the purpose of finding out whether retiring pension will be available to the petitioner or not. Rule 74 (b) (ii) is clear that a government servant may be required to retire in public interest on or after completing 30 years of qualifying service or on attaining 50 years of age. Use of the word "or" clearly signifies that if any of the two conditions are fulfilled, the appointing authority has the power to require a government servant to retire from service in public interest. Rule 74 (b) (iii) which was substituted in place of earlier provision by G.S.R. 19 dated 12- 2-1973 creates entitlement for retiring pension to a government servant who is required to, retire in public interest under this rule. 6A. On behalf of petitioner reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Lal V/s. State of UP. (AIR 1954 S.C.369) to support the argument that loss in pension would render an order of compulsory retirement penal in nature. There is nothing in the said judgment to support the aforesaid contention rather paragraphs 18 and 9 fully clarify that on compulsory retirement a government servant will be entitled to the pension etc. that he has actually earned. Unlike in the case of dismissal or removal there is no loss of any accrued benefit and the loss of future prospect is too uncertain to be regarded as a punishment in the eye of the law. that he has actually earned. Unlike in the case of dismissal or removal there is no loss of any accrued benefit and the loss of future prospect is too uncertain to be regarded as a punishment in the eye of the law. On behalf of the respondents also it was submitted that petitioner would be entitled to pension already earned by virtue of his service rendered before compulsory retirement as per provisions in Rule 145 of the Bihar Pension Rules which shows that minimum qualifying service for pension etc. is only 10 years. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the first con-tension raised on behalf of the petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected. At the same time, it is apparent from undisputed averments in some of the interlocutary applications filed on behalf of the petitioner that till date he has not been paid any pension. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that it is not clear whether the petitioner has filed application for pension and submitted necessary papers for the same or not. Keeping in view the stand of the petitioner and his application, it is made clear that a government servant who is made to retire in public interest under Rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Code is entitled for retiring pension in accordance with law." 8. In the circumstances, the issue having already decided by the Court, the petitioner having not moved against the judgment before the appellate court, which is binding both on the petitioner and the Respondent, no fresh ground has been made out to assail the order dated 9th March, 2000. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.