CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5886 OF 2001 ----- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ----- Jyoti Shankar Tiwary, S/O Late Harenda Prasad Tiwary, R/O Mohalla B.B.Ganj Road, Railway Gumati No. 104, Brahmpura, P.O. Brahmpura, M.I.T., P.S. Town Sadar, Muzaffarpur, Distt- Muzaffarpur -----Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Accountant General (A.G.),Bihar, Patna. 3. The Engineer Commissioner (Abhiyanta Ayukta), Building Construction Department “Vishwasaraiya Bhawan” Belly Road, Patna. 4. The Engineer-In-Chief, Building Construction Department (Division No.1), “Vishwasaraiya Bhawan” Belly Road, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, Building Construction Department, Belly Road, Patna. 6. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. ---- Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh No.5, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Girijesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG-3 For the Accountant General : Mr. Ram Kinkar Chaubey, S.C. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ------ Shailesh Kr. Sinha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State as also the Accountant General. 2. The claim of the original writ petitioner Harendra Prasad Tiwary (now deceased) is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 11th of April, 1956 in the Public Works Department, Government of Bihar on temporary basis and continued to serve the Department till the year 1982 when he resigned and joined the service of the Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) and, as such, the petitioner (the substituted legal representative of the original writ petitioner) is entitled to receive the retiral dues of his father for the period his father had served in the Government of - 2 - Bihar. It is submitted that the original petitioner had received all his retiral dues for the period he had served with the Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) from where he retired on 31st of October, 1989. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of Letter No.167 dated 21st of January, 1982, as contained in Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, it would appear that the request of the original petitioner for his resignation was accepted by the Engineer-in-Chief-Cum- Additional Commissioner, Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, which is also evident from the letter dated 1.5.1987, as contained in Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner, with reference to the above letters, contends that his father remained in the service of the State till 1982. The petitioner, however, is not disputing the letter dated 23rd of May, 2001, as contained in Annexure 5/A to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereby Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) has indicated the service details of the original petitioner. The date of joining of the original petitioner with the Steel Authority of India is mentioned as 11.3.1967 on receiving the relieving order from the PWD, Government of Bihar on 30th of March, 1967. It is further mentioned in the said letter that the original petitioner was allowed four promotions as Assistant Divisional Engineer(Civil), Divisional Engineer (Civil), Zonal Engineer (Civil) and the Superintending Engineer (Civil) on 1.4.1970, 23.7.1974, 21.11.1979 and 30.10.1986, respectively. His date of retirement of is 31.10.1989 as per the office order dated 20th of July, 1989 (Annexure 6) issued by the Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) in its Personnel Department reiterating the service details of the original petitioner. It is specifically mentioned in the said office order that the total length of service of the original petitioner in the Steel Authority of India is 22 years 6 months and 27 days. Notwithstanding the above, the contention of the petitioner is that his father had served the Steel Authority - 3 - of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) for the period between 1982 and 1989 only. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the outset, raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground of delay and laches and submits that the claim of the petitioner has become stale; besides the fact that the writ petition has no merit. It is submitted that, admittedly, the original petitioner retired from the service in the year 1989 and the present writ petition was filed in the year 2001 and, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the State relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 115 (paragraph 14). Besides the above preliminary objection, it is further submitted that the very issue as to whether the original petitioner had served in the State of Bihar till the year 1982 or he had served in the Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant) from 1967 to 1989 is a seriously disputed question of fact. On perusal of the documents, as contained in Annexure 5/A and Annexure 6 to the rejoinder of the petitioner himself, it would appear that the original petitioner served in the Steel Authority of India for more than 22 years and from where he received all his retiral dues and as such the claim of the petitioner that his father had served in the State of Bihar till 1982 is not correct. In other words, the petitioner claims that his father has served in the Steel Authority of India only for the period 1982 to 1989, which appears to be factually incorrect in view of aforesaid letters contained in Annexure 5/A and 6. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the submission advanced on behalf of the State asserting therein that the original petitioner served in the Steel Authority of India from 1967 to 1989 is absolutely incorrect whereas, according to the petitioner, his father had served in the Steel Authority of India after 1982. - 4 - 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings and the affidavits, it is not in dispute that the original petitioner retired from the service of the Steel Authority of India in the year 1989. The present writ application has been filed in the year 2001. The reason for the delay in filing this writ application is that after retirement of the original petitioner in the year 1989, he fell ill and as such he could not pursue the matter. However, he made certain representations either himself or by his son. The reason assigned by the original petitioner for such delay that he had taken legal recourse till the year 2001 with respect to the right to receive the retiral dues from the State of Bihar on the ground that he served till the year 1982, could not be justified in a writ petition filed in the year 2001. In this view of the matter, the writ application suffers from serious laches and delay. Besides, however, since the claim of the petitioner is with regard to the retiral dues, the Court is inclined to consider the other submissions of the parties with regard to the merits of the matter. The controversy is that the father of the petitioner claimed to have worked in the State of Bihar till 1982 whereas the stand of the State is that the original petitioner had served in the Steel Authority of India from 1967 to 1989. The petitioner relied upon certain letters of the State from where the petitioner submits that on perusal of the same, it would indicate that the original petitioner’s resignation was accepted in the year 1981-82 whereas the petitioner is not in a position to disown the letters issued by the Steel Authority of India (Bokaro Steel Plant), as contained in Annexures 5/A and 6 to the rejoinder, where the total length of the service as on the date of retirement on 31st of October, 1989 is more than 22 years. These are the issues which are the seriously disputed questions on facts, that cannot be gone into appropriately in a writ proceeding. - 5 - 7. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court, The 5th of August, 2010. P.N.M. A.F.R.