JUDGEMENT Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order contained in letter no. 807 dated 26.2.1981 (Annexure- 18) issued by the respondent no. 3 refusing the request of the petitioner to allow him to join on the post of Section Officer at Zila Parishad, Darbhanga after his return from deputation and make payment of salary with effect from 1.11.1980. 2. The short relevant fact of the case is that petitioner was appointed in the service of the Zila Parishad, Darbhanga vide letter no. 571 dated 22.4.1964 (Annexure-3). While the petitioner was in the service of the District Zila Parishad, he joined on the post of Assistant Superintendent in the Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Muzaffarpur on 16.4.1977. Petitioner although as per his letter dated 15.4.1977 (Annexure-8), requested for granting him a lien on the post of Section Officer for a period of one year with effect from 16.4.1977. The petitioner, however, without waiting for any order to be passed, joined the aforesaid post of Assistant Superintendent in Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Muzaffarpur on 16.4.1977. Thereafter, while the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent of Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Muzaffarpur, he went to Algeria as a technician in the Ministry of Public Works, Algeria. The respondent-Zila Parishad, however, on the request of the petitioner and in order to maintain continuity of his service allowed the lien of his post of Section Officer till 15.7.1978 with a clear stipulation that the petitioner must join the service of Zila Parishad on expiry of the lien period i.e. till 15.7.1978 failing which it will be taken that petitioner is not interested in joining the service and in his place, the vacancy shall be filled by permanent appointment vide memo no. 440 dated 7.7.1978 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner, on returned from Algeria, requested the Zila Parishad to accept his joining with effect from 1.11.1980 which was not accepted by the respondent-Zila Parishad and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.2.1981 (Annexure-18). The petitioner, on being aggrieved by such refusal, filed a Title Suit No. 189 of 1982 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Darbhanga for declaration of the order contained in Annexure-18 as illegal and void with further relief of payment of the salary. The suit was contested by the respondent-Zila Parishad. The petitioner, on being aggrieved by such refusal, filed a Title Suit No. 189 of 1982 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Darbhanga for declaration of the order contained in Annexure-18 as illegal and void with further relief of payment of the salary. The suit was contested by the respondent-Zila Parishad. The petitioner filed an application in the said suit on 2.11.1999 after about 17 years for withdrawal of the suit in order to agitate the matter in this court in its writ jurisdiction. The petition was vehemently opposed by the respondent-Zila Parishad, however, by order dated, 14.1.2000, the suit was permitted to be withdrawn and the present writ application was filed on 29.2.2000. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter no. 26.2.1981 (Annexure-18) rejecting his request for allowing him to join on his original post of Section Officer with consequential payment of salary. 3. It is primarily contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the services of the petitioner, at no point of time, was terminated by the respondent-Zila Parishad even assuming his absence being unauthorized. The respondent cannot refuse to accept his joining in absence of any order of termination/removal and that too only after holding a Departmental enquiry for the alleged unauthorized absence. The same having not done, the petitioner cannot be denied to join the post. Therefore, the petitioners refusal to join vide letter dated 26.2.1981 (Annexure-18) deserves to be quashed with further direction to make the payment of salary with effect from 1.11.1980 since the petitioner would be deemed to have been continued in service. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decision of this court in the case of Sidhnath Upadhya V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 1991(2) PLJR, 148 in support of his contention that his request for joining cannot be refused without a regular departmental enquiry for remaining absent from duty. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. V/s. District Zila Parishad, Bhojpur & Ors. reported in (1992) 2 S.C.C. 598 [: 1992(2) PLJR (SC)50 in support of his contention that the matter agitated in suit and on its dismissal, in a subsequently filed writ petition the matter decided in suit can be agitated again. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. reported in (1992) 2 S.C.C. 598 [: 1992(2) PLJR (SC)50 in support of his contention that the matter agitated in suit and on its dismissal, in a subsequently filed writ petition the matter decided in suit can be agitated again. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. In its counter affidavit, respondent has specifically stated that taking the lenient view in the matter so that the petitioner may not suffer any break in continuity of his service and also considering the request of the petitioner lien was sanctioned till 15.7.1978 stating clearly that in case petitioner fails to join the services on expiry of the lien period it would be taken that petitioner is not willing to join the service and in his place, necessary appointments shall be made in the interest of Zila Parishad vide memo no. 440 dated 7.7.1978 as contained in Annexure-A. Against the order refusing him to allow joining the post, petitioner had filed an appeal. The same was, however, rejected and communicated the same to the petitioner as per letter no. 712, dated 7.12.1981 vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It was also communicated to the petitioner through Annexure-C that he no longer remained in the services of the Zila Parishad and accordingly, he was directed to refund the advance money to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- being outstanding dues against him and deposit the same with respondent-Zila Parishad failing which necessary steps shall be taken for recovery of the said amount. The said order as contained in Annexure-C haying not assailed it attends finality. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent-Zila Parishad that by filing the present writ application, challenging the order dated 26.2.1981 (Annexure-18) whereby request of the petitioner for allowing him to join in the service of the Zila Parishad was rejected, cannot be permitted to assail the same in the year 2000. Moreso petitioner had already ceased to be in service as communicated to him as per letter no. 712 dated 7.12.1981 (Annexure-C) which remained unchallenged till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order dated 26.2.1981, as contained in Annexure-18 by filing a civil suit in the year, 1989 and continued with the suit till 1999. It was contested by the respondent on merits. 712 dated 7.12.1981 (Annexure-C) which remained unchallenged till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner had challenged the impugned order dated 26.2.1981, as contained in Annexure-18 by filing a civil suit in the year, 1989 and continued with the suit till 1999. It was contested by the respondent on merits. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner benefited himself by interim orders regarding payment of salary in past. However, since the prayer for restraining the operation of the order dated 26.10.1981 rejecting the request for permitting him to join the service was not allowed and an order of status quo was passed. Petitioner having found that no further benefit can be availed in the suit, has filed the present writ application thereby misusing the process of law. It is submitted that filing of the present application is not a bona fide act on the part of the petitioner after about 18 years of passing the impunged order but a misuse of the process of the court. The writ application, in the above circumstances, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Zila Parishad submits that the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner as referred-to-above, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Sidhnath Upadhya (supra), the employee concerned, agitated the matter in this court immediately after passing of the order whereas in the present case, the petitioner has filed the writ application after about 18 years. In the case of M/s Oehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. before the Supreme Court, the matter relates to imposing of cess on the company for different years having completely different facts, and as such, has no application in the present case. 6. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of their very respective pleadings parties, it would appear that petitioner while in the service of the respondent-Zila Parishad opted on his own to join the services of Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Muzaffarpur on 16.4.1977 without receiving any order on his request letter dated 15.4.1977 for granting of lien of one year. No order was passed on his application for grant of lien. Even after expiry of one year lien period, the petitioner did not join back the service. No order was passed on his application for grant of lien. Even after expiry of one year lien period, the petitioner did not join back the service. The respondent however, considering his request and taking lenient view in the matter so that there may not be service break, the petitioner was been granted lien till 15.7.1978 with clear stipulation that in case petitioner fails to join the service, it will be taken that petitioner is not willing to joint the services of the respondent-Zila Parishad and in his place necessary appointments shall be made. The petitioner again did not join, however, made an application dated 1.11.1980 as contained in Annexure-16 for allowing him to join the service of the district Zila Parishad which was rejected and communicated through the impunged letter dated 26.2.1981 (Annexure-18). It further appears that petitioner had filed an appeal against the same. The petitioner was informed about dismissal of his appeal as per letter dated 7.12.2001 vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. The said letter dated 7.12.2001 has been brought on record through counter affidavit of the respondent-Zila Parishad. On perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 7.12.1981, it would appear it was also communicated to the petitioner that he no longer remained in the service of the Zila Parishad with immediate effect. The said letter communicating the order has not been challenged by the petitioner. As such the above order dated 7.12.1981 attended its finality in the year 1981 itself and therefore, assailing the order dated 26.2.1981 whereby his joining was refused, cannot be allowed. Notwithstanding the above, there appears to be no justification for keeping his Title Suit pending for about 17 years and prayed for withdrawal of the suit for filing writ petition. Even after having obtained some relief with regard to the payment of salary assailing the impugned order after 18 years of passing of the same through this writ application, cannot be allowed for having no valid justification. The decision in the case Sidhnath Upadhya as reported in 1991(2) Patna Law Journal Reporter page 148 is of no help to the petitioner since the facts of the case and the present case does not stand on the similar footing. In the instant case, petitioner has approached this court after 18 years whereas in the aforesaid case, writ application was filed soon after passing the impunged order in the said case. In the instant case, petitioner has approached this court after 18 years whereas in the aforesaid case, writ application was filed soon after passing the impunged order in the said case. Besides in the said case no order of termination was passed whereas in the present case petitioner was terminated from service about 17-18 years prior to filing of the present writ application. As regards the decision in the case of M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd., (1992) Volume-2 SCC page 598 [:1992(2) PLJR (SC)5. In the said case, imposing of cess was in question of different years as such, the challenge was imposing the cess in the subsequent years taking into account the cess imposed in the previous years, was considered by the Apex Court, therefore, facts of the case stood on different footing and as such, decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. More so, it is not in dispute that the order of terminating the service of the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.1981 (Annexure-C) with immediate effect, has remained unchallenged till date. This being the position, it does not stand to reason, the request of the petitioner to allow him to join the service claiming himself to be in service. 7. For the reasons aforesaid and the discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed.