Patna High CourtCWJC/15715/2006dismissed

Kamdeo Narayan Prasad Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-02-04Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15715 of 2006 ====================================================== Kamdeo Narayan Prasad Verma, son of Late Ramadhin Prasad, Retd. District Fishery Officer, Flat No. D/204, Pushpanjali Vihar, Kachhi Talab, Saristabad Road, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Department of Fisheries and Animal Husbandary, Bihar, Patna.

4. Director, Department of Fishery, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.

6. The Director Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : AC to SC-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

04-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel - 22.

The present writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2006, with a prayer to direct for payment of salary for Class -II post for the period 20-02-1980 to 16-06-1988. It has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired from the service in the year 1997. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the claim raised in the writ petition, the petitioner has also filed representation, but no heed was taken by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ

Patna High Court CWJC No.15715 of 2006 (2) dt.04-02-2015 2/2 petition.

Fact remains that claim for salary relating to the period from 1980 to 1988 for Class II post has been raised in the month of December, 2006, while the petitioner retired in the year 1997. No plausible explanation has been given for such long delay.

In view of delayed filing of the writ petition, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U