Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner and one Chaturbhuj Lal were working as Class IV employees with the respondent establishment i.e. Bihar State Pollution Control Board. On 13.11.1980 vide Annexure 1. the petitioner was required to assume the charge of the post of Routine Clerk because one Syed Kadir Karim, typist had shown his unwillingness to hold the additional charge. Under Annexure 1 it was clearly mentioned -that for holding the charge of the post of Routine Clerk, the petitioner would not be paid any additional allowance. 3. It appears that the question of promotion of some of the Class IV employees was considered by the respondents. One Chaturbhuj Lal, who was the senior-most Class IV employee was given the promotion though the petitioner alone was a qualified employee to be promoted as Class III/Routine Clerk and there were positive recommendations in his favour. However. Chaturbhuj Lal was appointed/promoted as Routine Clerk. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 17.9.1984 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board promoting Chaturbhuj Lal to the post of Routine Clerk came to this dourt in CWJC No. 264 of 1986. The said writ application was dismissed on 7th December, 1995. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner took up the matter in LPA No. 41 of 1996. The said Letters Patent Appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 3.3.2003 with the observations that Chaturbhuj Lal, the senior-most man who was not possessed of the requisite qualifications could not dislodge the claim of the petitioner as at the relevant time the petitioner-appellant was possessed of the requisite qualifications and he was the second senior-most and therefore in effect could be selected to perform the charge. The Division Bench also observed that the said respondent No. 4 (Chaturbhuj Lal) in selection would take his place subsequently. 5. The order passed by the Division Bench was executed by he respondent - Pollution Control Board and vide Office Order No. 8 dated 20th June, 2003 it was finally observed that the petitioner Shyam Sunder Prasad Sinha be promoted to the post of Routine Clerk in place of Chaturbhuj Lal, Routine Clerk. It was also ordered that Chaturbhuj Lal be reverted back to the post of Daftary and he would be entitled to salary and other allowances domissible for the post of Daftary. It was also ordered that Chaturbhuj Lal be reverted back to the post of Daftary and he would be entitled to salary and other allowances domissible for the post of Daftary. It was also observed that the said Office Order dated 20th June, 2003 came into effect from the date of the High Courts order dated 3.3.2002. 6. The grievances of the present petitioner now are that if he has worked as a Routine Clerk in the year 1980 and contrary to his rights another man was appointed/promoted then the petitioners entitlement should flow in his favour with effect from 13th November, 1980 or in any case from 17th September, 1984 when promotion was given to Chaturbhuj Lal. 7. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that there was only one post of Routine Clerk and as on 17.9.1,984 the said Chaturbhuj Lal was promoted, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits. Contesting those propositions learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 17.9.1984 was kept in abeyance by the Writ Court till the disposal of the same. It is also submitted that said Chaturbhuj Lal was promoted after dismissal of the writ application, therefore, the Board would not be entitled to say that they are unable to make payments of salary to two persons. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I am unable to concede to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 13.11.1980 vide Annexure 1 the petitioner was required to assume the charge of the post of Routine Clerk. The order was clear in terms. It suit that the petitioner would not be entitled to any additional allowances. The petitioner knowing well that he would not get any allowances accepted the additional charge or the charge of the post of Routine Clerk. After a long lapse of 23 years he cannot be allowed to say that he was entitled to any other allowances or promotion on the date when he had assumed the charge of the post of Routine Clerk. 9. So far as the petitioners entitlement on 17.9.1984 is concerned, the same also cannot be given to him in view of the order which was passed in favour of Chaturbhuj Lal promoting him from the post of daftary to the post of Routine Clerk. 9. So far as the petitioners entitlement on 17.9.1984 is concerned, the same also cannot be given to him in view of the order which was passed in favour of Chaturbhuj Lal promoting him from the post of daftary to the post of Routine Clerk. Undisputedly there was one post of Routine Clerk and there was an order of promotion in favour of Chaturbhuj Lal. It would be a different thing that the order issued in favour of Chaturbhuj Lal was kept in abeyance but in absence of any interim order of mandatory direction the petitioner himself could not be promoted to the post of Routine Clerk with effect from 17.9.1984 or from the date when the operation of the order dated 17.9.1984 was kept in abeyance. 10. Undisputedly the writ application was dismissed on 7.12.1985. The LPA was allowed on 3.3.2003. If that be so the petitioners case would be considered only after the promotion of Chaturbhuj Lal was cancelled by the High Court. The High Court in Letters Patent appeal did not say that the petitioner would be entitled to his promotion from 17.9.1984, the date on which promotion was given to Chaturbhuj Lal. The High Court simply observed that at that relevant time the petitioner-appellant was possessed of qualifications and he was the second senior-most and therefore, in effect, could be selected to perform the charge/job. The High Court also observed that the respondent No. 4 in selection would have his place subsequently. The High Court did not say nor reserved any liberty in favour of the petitioner for consideration of his case with effect from 17.9.1984. The respondents in the considered opinion of this Court have rightly observed the order of this Court by giving promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date the Letters Patent Appeal of the petitioner was allowed. The petitioner certainly would not be entitled to any benefits - monetary or otherwise, either from 13.11.1980 or from 17.9.1984. The petition is dismissed.