IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.893 of 2003 ANIL KUMAR MANDAL,son of Late Shiv Nandan Mandal, Resident of Villazge and P.O. Mehandi, P.S. Tikapatti, Disrict Purnea. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The District Cum Joint Secretary, Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The District Education Establishment Committee through its Chairman the District Magistrate, Purnea. 5.The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 6.The District Accounts Officer, Purnea. 7.The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 8.The Block Education Extension Officer, Kaswa, District Purnea. ----------- 3 26.7.2010 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the concerned respondents for payment of revised scale to the petitioner in the promotional post in the pay scale which was granted in favour of the petitioner after promotion on completion of 12 years of service as has been fixed by the Headmaster of the school taking into account the provisions as contained in Clause 13 (iii) of Finance Department Resolution No.3/ PAR 01-3/ 89- 6022 F (2) dated 18.12.1989, as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition.” The aforementioned vague prayer without disclosing the date of such cause of action of reduction of pay scale vide resolution dated 18.12.1989, also gets expressed from reading of Annexure-10, a letter of the District Accounts Officer dated 4.3.2002 annexing representation of the petitioner for its 2 consideration by the Special Secretary to the State Government. From reading of such representation contained in Annexure-9, it will be absolutely clear that the petitioner’s salary pursuant to the Government Resolution of the year 1989 was re-fixed and in fact reduced in the year 1992. After that the petitioner had waited for ten years before raising this issue only when he was at the verge of his superannuation. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find the reliance placed by the petitioner on the reference made by the District Accounts Officer, Purnia to be the valid reason for explaining the delay of ten years. The monetary relief normally sought in a writ petition, even though having no prescribed limit, must be raised at least within a period in which a money suit would be maintainable. A plain and simple monetary cause of action of the year 1992 therefore cannot be agitated by filing a writ application on 21.1.2003 after 11 years of the cause of action. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere in the matter and would dismiss this writ application only on the ground of delay and laches. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)