IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1760 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6254 of 2007 With Interlocutory Application No. 8025 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1760 of 2011. ====================================================== Shyam Sunder Singh, S/o Late Keshwar Singh, R/o Village - Samai, P.O. - Khalsha Dhibri, Via - Kadirganj, P.S. - Mufassil, Nawadah, District - Nawadah (Bihar), at present posted and working as a Head Master in recognized Non Govt. Middle School, Sikandara, P.O. - Khalsha Dhibri, P.S. - Mufassil, District- Nawadah .... .... Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Director (Primary Education), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education, District - Nawadah .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG 15. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 02-12-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8025 of 2011. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of two years and 80 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against Patna High Court LPA No.1760 of 2011 (3) dt.02-12-2011 2 / 3 2 the order of the learned single Judge dated 26th March 2009. According to the appellant, against the order dated 26th March 2009 he pursued the remedy of review in Civil Review No. 293 of 2009. Same was dismissed on 1st September 2010. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1713 of 2010 preferred against the said order is still pending. Therefore, the delay. It appears that the delay in question is caused on account of the remedy of review pursued by the appellant. In the above circumstances, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1760 of 2011. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26th March 2009 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 6254 of 2007, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It appears that the appellant joined the Middle School, Sikandara, District – Nawadah, a non-government school, as a Headmaster on 16th August, 1966. He filed the above CWJC No. 6254 of 2007 after his retirement from service to lodge the claim against the State Government and its authorities for payment of salary from the date of his appointment till the date of his retirement from service with interest and for enforcement of the rights and entitlements accrued to the appellant. The writ petition was contested by the State Government. According to the State Government, the State Government had considered the taking over of the management and control of the aforesaid Middle School, Sikandara, District – Nawadah under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Patna High Court LPA No.1760 of 2011 (3) dt.02-12-2011 3 / 3 3 Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976, and had taken a conscious decision not to take over the control of the said school. Such decision was taken twice – once in 1986 and later in 1990. According to the State Government, neither the control of the school was taken over by the State Government nor did the employees of the school have any claim against the State Government. The claim deserves to be dismissed for the appellant was never a servant of the State Government. He, therefore, cannot have any right or entitlement against the State Government or its authorities; the appellant has approached this Court for redressal of the grievance 40 years after the alleged cause of action and after his retirement from service. Evidently, the grievance made by the appellant is imaginary and has no legs to stand on. Moreover, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the appellant withdrew the writ petition with a view to approaching the respondent authorities. Having withdrawn the writ petition, the Appeal against the order of withdrawal is not maintainable. In our opinion, the Writ Petition and the Appeal both are totally misconceived and are devoid of any merit. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)