IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10800 of 2006 SMT.ASHA LATA SAHAY wife of late Surendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Juran Chapra, P.S. Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Accountant General, Bihar, Virchand Patel Marg, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Tirhut Commissionary, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 4 14.12.2010 The petitioner’s late husband was a Head Assistant in District Development Section, Muzaffarpur. By the District Establishment Committee, he was granted super time scale on 20.1.1993 with effect from 1.4.1991. Later on, it was found that three persons, who were senior to the petitioner were left out. The number of post being limited ,petitioner’s grant super time scale was then revived and it was shifted from 1.4.1991 to 1.4.1992 when position became available. Petitioner’s late husband was still in service then and this change was made on 19.6.1993 i.e. the same year it was granted. The petitioner’s late husband retired on 31.12.1993 and thereafter died on 22.1.1998. It is a matter of record that the petitioner’s husband did not challenge this change of date of grant of super time scale. It appears that in the year 2002, the petitioner claiming herself to be a hapless widow filed C.W.J.C.No. 1850 of 2002 challenging the right of the authority to shift the date of grant of super time scale to the petitioner’s late husband. The said writ petition, after some arguments, was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 15.3.2002 with a liberty to follow up her representation with the department. This writ application has been filed - 2 - stating that the representation, as filed by her, is not being disposed of and the promotion date was wrongly changed. State has filed a counter affidavit in which they have annexed the order of District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, as communicated to the petitioner, vide memo dated 27.8.2008. In that itself apart from other facts, it was pointed out that against this shifting of date, as done on 19.6.1993, petitioner’s late husband had made a representation on 5.8.1993, which has been rejected and communicated to him on 29.10.1993.Thus, seen two things appeared, firstly, during his service tenure, petitioner’s late husband did not challenge the shifting of date of grant of super time scale. Even upon superannuation, he did not challenge the same for over six years. It would thus not be open to the petitioner to challenge the same now long after the death of petitioner’s husband. A protest was made by the petitioner’s late husband in 1993 itself, which has been dealt and disposed of at that time itself much before petitioner’s superannuation. He did not challenge the same .Thus, in my view, the Writ petition merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)