Naresh Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13395 of 2025 ====================================================== Naresh Prasad Yadav Son of Kokay Yadav Resident of Village- Korian, P.O.- Asarganj, P.S.- Mosumganj, District- Munger, Pin- 813213. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Accountant General (A and E), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Munger.

4.

The District Pensioner Society, Munger through its Secretary. 5.

The Deputy Collector (Est.), Munger.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel (11) Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner who superannuated on 31.12.2001 as Night Guard from the Bihar State Food Corporation has filed the instant application after a period of 24 years for grant of 1st & 2nd ACP with effect from 9.8.1999.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the petition, the Court finds that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in filing of the instant writ application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to

Patna High Court CWJC No.13395 of 2025(2) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 the representations filed by the petitioner dated 21.6.2014, 22.6.2024 and 20.12.2024 to explain the delay in approaching this Court for the reliefs prayed for.

5. It would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors; (2022) 15 SCC 536, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the representation does not extend the period of limitation and the person concerned has to approach the Court within a reasonable time.

6. In view of the above and especially the unexplained delay and laches of over 25 years, the Court finds no merit in the instant writ application and the same is dismissed. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U