IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7132 of 2007 SUSHILA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 30.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner states to have been appointed as a Trained Dai on 27.12.1977. The grievance is that from the date of joining she has not been paid in the scale of Trained Dai. The petitioner has represented with no avail and she is going to superannuate on 31.3.2008. The writ court is meant for those who are vigilant about protection of their right and not fort those who may be indolent and not vigilant. This Court was therefore not inclined to interfere on that short ground, but the counter affidavit of the respondents has come to the aid of the petitioner. Statement has been made in Para 6 of the counter affidavit of certain payment said to have been made to the petitioner. The writ application is therefore disposed with the observation that if the petitioner has any further grievance, she may move before the authorities who it is expected shall consider her representation in accordance with law. It is made clear that any disposal of such representation of essentially a belated claim shall not result in any fresh dejure relationship between the parties to found a cause of action as decided in the case reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)