Order Annexure-2 dated 8.7.1993 issued from the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E)-I, Bihar is being challenged in the present writ application, filed by the petitioner in December, 2004. Petitioner superannuated from the post of Emergency Divisional Accountant under the office of the Accountant General on 31.5.1993. Annexure-2 therefore came to be issued by respondent No. 8 to facilitate fixation of his pension and other retiral dues in terms of his entitlement. 2. There are other prayers as well made in the writ application wherein petitioner wants himself to be treated as State Government employee and be given the benefit of the post which he would have held as such irrespective of the fact that he was deputed as an Emergency Divisional Accountant and worked on that post till his superannuation under the office of the Accountant General, Bihar. 3. Before getting into facts and socalled law which has been urged at the bar, the Court must record its reservation on the prayer made by the petitioner at the very outset in the background that the impugned annexure contained in Annexure2 was issued as far back as in 1993 and no serious challenge was ever thrown to that communication till the filing of the present writ application in the year 2004, more so when the petitioner had retired on 31.5.1993 from service. Secondly the socalled bogey being raised by the petitioner that he never opted for being deputed as an Emergency Divisional Accountant has to be taken with a pinch of salt because such an exercise was carried out way back in the year 1979 and petitioner worked under the office of the Accountant General till he superannuated in 1993. No person can be compelled to work in an organization for more than 20 years without his willingness, consent and acceptance of the position .as to this status and post on which he was working. In the opinion of this Court the writ application therefore has to be viewed whether it is a bona fide claim having been raised by the petitioner or motivated by other extraneous consideration. 4. The brief facts are that the petitioner entered service under the Public Works Department (PWD) as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year 1957. He got promotion as a Senior Accounts Clerk and his services were confirmed with effect from 1.3.1969. 5. 4. The brief facts are that the petitioner entered service under the Public Works Department (PWD) as a Junior Accounts Clerk in the year 1957. He got promotion as a Senior Accounts Clerk and his services were confirmed with effect from 1.3.1969. 5. There was dearth of officers at the level of Divisional Accountant in the office of Accountant General, Bihar. Letters thereof were circulated to all the departments of the State Government to recommend names of Senior Account Clerks having more than 5 years experience and good service record, to fill up the vacancies of Emergency Divisional Accountants. Name of the petitioner was forwarded to the office of the Accountant General and he joined the office of Accountant General as Emergency Divisional Accountant in the year 1979, a fact not in dispute. Thereafter he worked in that capacity and retired from the said post. Post retirement, it seems, petitioner was not happy with the kind of benefits which he could have drawn or the pension which he was entitied to by virtue of being Emergency Divisional Accountant. He started raising a bogey that since he never opted for the post of Emergency Divisional Accountant, his so-called deputation or deployment under the Accountant General should be annulled and he should be continued to be treated as a employee of the State Government. If it is done, then his pension etc. should be fixed on the basis of entitlement of a State Government employee instead of an employee of the Accountant General. 6. The Court directed the Acc Juntant General to file counter affidavit for proper appreciation of the issue as well as adjudication whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs whicll he is seeking in the background under which a dispute was sought to be raised. 7. The stand of the respondent Accountant General is that it is too late in the day to state that the petitioner was forced out of service of the State Government and that he was compelled to serve the office of the Accountant General for m0re than two decades before his superannuation. Fact is that many a persons working under the various departments of the State Government had opted to work as Emergency Divisional Accountant under the Accountant General as the pay and perks at the relevant time was more attractive. Fact is that many a persons working under the various departments of the State Government had opted to work as Emergency Divisional Accountant under the Accountant General as the pay and perks at the relevant time was more attractive. The fact that the petitioner continued on the post till the time of his superannuation is a circumstance to show that there was no ifs and buts on his deployment and functioning as such on the post in question. Petitioner faced problems in matter of confirmation or promotion under the respondent Accountant General because he never passed the Divisional Accountant Grade Examination which was mandatory for his absorption under the cadre of Divisional Accountant and promotions thereafter. Since the petitioner could not achieve such benefits and the State Government Employees over the years had ended up with better pay-scale and retiral benefits, the bogey is now being raised by the petitioner that he should be treated as a State Government employee and be given the presumptive pay of the State Government by presuming his continuance as an employee of the State despite his deployment under the respondent Accountant General. 8. The counter affidavit further rebuts most of the positions which have been taken in the writ application. It also indicates the various pay-scales to which petitioner was entitled from time to time and the settlement of the retiral dues of the petitioner and other benefits as an employee of the Accountant General. All this adds up to only one position that claim of the petitioner lacks bona fide and has no legal basis. The reason for the petitioner to embark on a litigation of the kind is available from the pleadings and the assertions made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents Nos."7 and 8. 9. Obviously the present writ application has been filed with oblique motive to derive uncalled for benefit and re-open an issue which was settled years ago by the acceptance of the petitioner to join the office of the respondent Accountant General and having superannuated in the year 1993. 9. Obviously the present writ application has been filed with oblique motive to derive uncalled for benefit and re-open an issue which was settled years ago by the acceptance of the petitioner to join the office of the respondent Accountant General and having superannuated in the year 1993. In fact, any indulgence shown to the petitioner would open a flood gate of litigations and will encourage many similarly situated persons to demand similar kind of relief, which is not otherwise available to them after having worked in the capacity as Emergency Divisional Accountant, for more than two decades on the request and acceptance of the employees who were deployed or deputed under the Accountant General and came to be permanently engaged and utilized, till they superannuated. 10. The Court therefore will not go by the bald assertions that all these actions were taken against the petitioner without his consent or his willingness to join the post of Emergency Divisional Accountant under the respondent Accountant General. 11. Such a writ application does not deserve any indulgence in absence of any factual or legal infirmity having emerged in the above stated background. 12. The writ application is dismissed as being devoid of merit.