Patna High CourtCWJC/16698/2014dismissed

Rajeshwar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-30Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16698 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajeshwar Thakur, son of Late Prem Lal Thakur, resident of villageBaingra, P.S.- Saharghat, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani

5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur-2, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.1986 from the post of Assistant Teacher and since then almost 30 years have already elapsed. Now the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay his provident fund amount, which was allegedly deducted prior to 1976, with interest.

The present writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner has admitted in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that his all other retiral dues were paid to him. If, the petitioner was at all entitled for the provident fund amount allegedly deposited by him prior to 1976, then he ought to have raised such claim earlier after his retirement, when other dues were being paid to him, but that has not been done. After about 40 years, without any valid explanation, he is trying to revive a dead issue, which cannot be permitted at this belated stage, as the relevant records might have been

Patna High Court CWJC No.16698 of 2014 (2) dt.30-01-2016 destroyed or might have been lost. Entire claim of the petitioner is stale-one.

Hence, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U