JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2000 i.e. after having served under the erstwhile Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board. For almost a decade petitioner worked in the Marketing Board on transfer from the Department of Finance and he carried his lien on his post. The stand of the petitioner is that termination of his lien unilaterally from a back date vide order dated 16.8.97 contained in Annexure-6 is not only breach of the service jurisprudence but also the rule related thereto. 3. According to him his lien could not be terminated from a back date i.e. 16.7.1993 by an order dated 16.8.1997. Petitioner could not be accommodated in the Marketing Board on a reserved post and that in absence of fixation of pay scale of the petitioner for a long period of time it cannot be said that the petitioner had been finally absorbed under erstwhile Marketing Board. These circumstances would show that no case for termination of lien of the petitioner was made out. 4. Learned counsel representing the Marketing Board submits that it is a motivated kind of litigation without stating the true and correct facts with the sole object of deriving undue advantage from the State of Bihar, to which the petitioner is not entitled to. 5. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Marketing Board, they have brought on record the application of the petitioner dated 21.12.1991, which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The application of the petitioner addressed to the Chairman/Managing Director of the Marketing Board makes a request for his absorption in the Marketing Board, looking at the long period of satisfactory service under the Marketing Board. Based on the application of the petitioner the Board of Directors as per Agenda No. 36 decided to absorb the petitioner in the Marketing Board permanently. This fact is borne out from the minutes of the meeting annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 6. Not only this since there were only two posts of Audit Officer available in the Marketing Board and as per roster clearance one was for the general category and the other for Scheduled Caste category, the petitioner was absorbed in the second post keeping in view the Department of Personnel letter no. 6. Not only this since there were only two posts of Audit Officer available in the Marketing Board and as per roster clearance one was for the general category and the other for Scheduled Caste category, the petitioner was absorbed in the second post keeping in view the Department of Personnel letter no. 467 dated 22.1.1971 which indicates that if there was only one post which was available and that too was unfilled for a long time it may be filled up by the general category candidate. Petitioner therefore was accommodated on that post and a notification dated 16.7.1993 came to be issued by the Marketing Board certifying the permanent absorption of the petitioner under the Marketing Board. This notification would show that there is no element of doubt about1 the absorption of the petitioner under the Marketing Board. To that extent the stand of the petitioner that he had a lien continuing in his favour with the Finance Department is totally misplaced. 7. In yet another meeting held by the Board of Directors even the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed which was the revised pay scale as would be evident from Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. It was in this background that State taking note of the notification issued by the Marketing Board dated 16.7.1993 (Annexure-C) passed the order contained in Annexure-6. 8. The absorption of the petitioner under the Marketing Board in view of all the documents which have been brought on record no longer is an issue. The absorption of the petitioner has come to be made on the request of the petitioner. Merely because there was delay on the part of the State in issuance of a formal notification cancelling the lien of the petitioner by the Finance Department, it does not mean that the facts change or the absorption of the petitioner on a permanent basis under the Marketing Board would be allowed to be challenged. 9. There seems to be substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the Marketing Board that the object of the present writ application is to now derive benefit of pension from the State Government after the petitioner had been absorbed and retired from erstwhile Marketing Board. 9. There seems to be substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the Marketing Board that the object of the present writ application is to now derive benefit of pension from the State Government after the petitioner had been absorbed and retired from erstwhile Marketing Board. Admitted position is that the impugned Annexure-6 dated 16.8.1997 is sought to be challenged by filing this writ application on 18.7.2004 i.e. almost four years after his retirement from the Marketing Board and seven years after the so-called impugned notification was issued by the State Government contained in Annexure-6. 10. The Court has no hesitation in recording that in the totality of the facts it is a misplaced kind of writ application actuated with extraneous consideration rather than based on substantive right of the petitioner. 11. This writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.