IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8754 of 1997 RAMJEE SINGH, son of late Sukhdeo Singh, resident of village Sikathi, P.O. Udaypur (Sirijhauli), P.S. Sirijhauli (Bikramganj), District Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary Education, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas (Sasaram) … Respondents ----------- 5. 22.7.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “I, Service of petitioner to be taken into consideration with effect from 2.1.1962 for the purpose of seniority, promotion, increment etc. II. To pay time bound promotion with effect from due date i.e. 2.1.1982. III. To pay I.A. trained scale with effect from 25.3.1980. IV. To pay stipend amount from 25.3.1980 to 4.5.1980. V. Petitioner further prays for partial quashing of the order dated 8.9.1995 as contained in Memo No. 9/44-765/93 passed by respondent no.2 (Director Primary Education, Patna) so far relates to consideration of service of petitioner with effect from 2.1.1962, time bound promotion with 2 effect from 2.1.1982, I.A. trained scale and stipend amount.” As would be apparent the prayer of the petitioner ranging for a cause of action of the year 1962 and upto 1982 as included in paraghraph I to IV of the writ petition must be rejected only on the ground of its being stale and not sustainable on account of inordinate delay in moving this Court. It has to be noted that this writ application was filed on 19.9.1997 and thereafter the petitioner would not have in this writ application made a prayer for grant of relief of the year 1962, 1980 and 1982. Additionally this Court would find that the reasoned order passed on 8.9.1995 (Annexure 1) as with regard to ventilation of his grievance either with respect to payment of salary or grant of leave has been considered in the light of the materials available on record and it has been held that the petitioner will be entitled only for his stipend and grant of leave, if that was due in his leave account. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1, 3 dated 15.9.1995, therefore, also does not suffer from any infirmity, especially when the petitioner could not substantiate his claim before the authority. That being so, there is no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/