IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5016 of 2011 Laxman Yadav, S/o Late Dashrath Yadav, Resident of Mohalla- Ghunghari Tand, Bodh Gaya Road, Gaya, P.S. Civil Line, District-Gaya ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Gaya 2. The Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board, Patna through its Chief Executive Officer, Mahesh Bhawan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. The District Khadi Gramodyog Officer, Bihar Raj Khadigramodyog Board, Gaya 4. The Executive Officer, Bihar Raj Khadi Gramodyog Board, Gaya 5. The Labour Commissioner, Gaya ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Subhash Kishore Verma & Vinod Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, AC to GP 14 For the Board: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 2. 25.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Khadi Gramodyog Board. The petitioner claims arrears of salary from 1967 till date excluding the salary for the years 1970 and 1971. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Darwan by the Khadi Gramodyog Board on the basis of an agreement entered into with one Sonulal and the Development Officer, Khadi Gramodyog Board, Patna in the year 1967. He 2 further claims that he was not paid his salary for the years 1967 to 1969 but on repeated persuasion he was paid his salary for the years 1970 and 1971 while he was working as Stall Manager, Railway Station Staff of the Khadi Gramodyog, Gaya whereafter the stall was closed. Since then he again started working as Watchman but nothing has been paid to him. Despite opportunity granted to learned counsel for the petitioner no appointment letter could be filed before this Court. Reference is only made to a letter dated 2.2.2005 purportedly written by one Surendra Sharma, District Khadi Gramodyog Officer, Patna to the Chief Executive Officer in which reference is made to an appointment letter which is stated to have been handed over to him as was being enclosed with the said letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce the copy of the appointment letter but he submits that no such copy is available with the petitioner, he having handed over the original to the said Surendra Sharma. It is evident that the petitioner has raised a very old and stale claim before this Court that too 3 without any credible material in support of his appointment. In the above circumstances, the writ petition, raising a very old and stale claim, is dismissed in limine. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)