IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4552 of 2003 Ramsewak Singh, Son of Late Manori Singh, Resident of Village Mohanpur, P.s. Begusarai, District Begusarai. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Special Secretary Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar at Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Secondary and Public Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. ------- Respondents ----------- 3 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. As a matter of fact when the original petitioner, with the following prayer:- “1. That this application is for issuance of writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ/order/direction to give the benefit of two (2) years of reemployment since December 1994 to Nov. 1996 in view of clause 5 of the Circular vide resolution no. 3044 dated 31.5.83 (contained in Annexure-3) to the petitioner as well as its consequential benefit who is veteran freedom fighter and has got a Tamra Patra issued by the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi issued on 15.8.1972 quashing the letter vide Memo no. 2284 dated 20.10.94 issued by the respondent no.3 (contained in Annexure-5) by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected merely due to petitioner has been rejected 2 merely due to the petitioner’s application was not sent by the registered post as stated in clause 7 of Annexure 3 to the concerned authorities contrary to the decision taken by the cabinet by the resolution no. C.S.2/M 2- 108/82/519 dated 13.2.82 (contained in Annexure-2) however the petitioner’s application was received in the concerned administrative office before the stipulated time.” has already died, this application has, in fact, become infructuous because the benefit of extension of two years service to the original petitioner for the period 1994 to 1996 could have been given to him alone by allowing him to continue in service for the period of two years had he been alive. In that view of the matter, the prayer made in I.A. No. 4502 of 2005 for his being substituted, strictly speaking, is fit to be dismissed as the right to sue will not survive. However, as the counsel for the petitioner is sanguine that the original petitioner might have become entitled for financial benefit, this Court would allow the substitution of the persons named in paragraph no.2 of the I.A. No. 4502 of 2005. 3 I.A. No. 4502 of 2005 is accordingly disposed of. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the original petitioner himself had filed this writ application after nine years of cause of action. Admittedly, the original petitioner was to retire in the year 1994 and if he wanted the benefit of Government Resolution dated 13.2.1982, providing extension of service of freedom fighters, he had to approach this Court well in time and not after almost nine to ten years of cause of action. That being so, this application is dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)