CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2480 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------- SANYUKTA DEVI W/O LATE KANTI PRSAD SINHA, R/O VILLAGE KHAIRA DISTT.- JAMUI------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRARIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION,MUNGER 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, JAMUI 6. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ,BIHAR,PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, JAMUI 8. THE S.D.O. JAMUI 9. THE B,D.O. CHAKAI, JAMUI 10. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, JAMUI 11. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, JAMUI 12. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA--- RESPONDENTS ---------- For The Petitioner :Mr.RANA ISHWAR CHANDRA, ADVOCATE For The STATE : MR. HARI SHANKER ROY (AAG2) FOR THE A.G.; MR. R.K.SINGH, ADVOCATE -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Petitioner wants a direction on the respondent state authority to pay to her the retiral dues and all consequential benefits to which her late husband would have been entitled to since it has not been settled by the respondents all these years. According to the petitioner her husband joined as Panchayat Sewak in Khaira Panchayat block- Jamui in the year, 1951. He supposed to have died in harness on 31.8.1977. Since then as nothing was done by the respondents, this writ application with the relief in question was filed in the year, 2005. At the out set the Court is disinclined to entertain the writ application and pass any order in favour of petitioner because there has to be some time limit between the cause of - 2 - action having arisen and the assertion of the right before a court of law. If the death of the petitioner’s husband in the year, 1977 is accepted then why 2005 has been chosen to be the year when the writ application was filed has not been explained. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State reveals another story. As per the State authority they do not deny that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Grampanchayat Sewak in the year 1951 and he was paid monthly salary of Rs. 40/- but thereafter somewhere in the year, 1962 the husband of the petitioner chose to absent himself from duty and respondents had no information or input on the status of the husband of the petitioner thereafter. It is only now when the writ application is filed in the year, 2005 and with the sketchy material luckily having been available the position as stated above has emerged. With the stated factual position and conduct of the petitioner in this regard, the Court would not like to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting any kind of relief to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 20th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr.Secy.