Suresh Pd. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15967 of 2012 ====================================================== Suresh Prasad, Son Of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Resident of VillageNawadih, P.O.- Jarmundi, P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Engineer-In-Chief North, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Irrigation Building, Old Secretariat, Patna 3.

Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Veerpur, Supaul 4.

Superintending Engineer, Canal Division, Saharsa 5.

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 Mr. Rajnish Shandilya, AC to GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025 No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.

2. On one ground or the other, adjournments have been sought for on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner vide orders dated 25.9.2025, 13.10.2025, 3.11.2025 and 4.11.2025. Once again no one appears for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant application to revise the pay-scale and all the consequential benefits after retirement of the petitioner i.e., with effect from 30.11.2000 and to pay the amount of Rs.80,364/- and other admitted dues to which the petitioner is entitled.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15967 of 2012(10) dt.27-11-2025 2/2

4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having retired from service on 30.11.2000 as Head Clerk, he has not received his retirement benefits as per the notification of the Government of Bihar contained in order dated 1.1.1996.

5. From the contents of the writ application itself, the cause of action for the instant case arising in the year 2000 and the writ application having been preferred in the year 2012 together with learned counsel for the petitioner not being interested in pursuing the same, even otherwise in the opinion of the Court, the case is fit to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.

6. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. (Partha Sarthy, J) Shiv/- U