IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LPA No.1656 of 2009 --- Bengali Mistri s/o late Bhabhichan Mistri, r/o mohalla – New Market, P.S. Kotwali, District – Patna ….. Appellant Versus 1. Municipal Corporation, Patna through its Chief Executive Officer, Budha Marg, Patna 2. The Executive Officer, Water Board, Patna …. Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. B.J.Jha, Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate 2 4/1/2010 I.A.No.8742 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 3 years and 119 days in preferring the appeal. We have heard Mr. B.J. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. In this appeal the challenge is to the order dated 29.6.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.9955 of 2005, whereby the learned Single Judge passed the following order: “It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his case is covered by the earlier order of this court dated 23.1.2006, passed in CWJC. No.6729 of 2 2005 and other analogous cases, as such, this writ petition may be disposed of exactly in the same terms. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 23.1.2006, in CWJC. No.6729 of 2005 and other analogous cases.” Be it noted that in the earlier cases in a bunch of writ petitions, the writ court had issued the following direction: “Having heard the counsel for the parties and having considered the question raised in this batch of writ petitions, I am of the view that failure to grant the benefit of the extended retirement age from 58 years to 60 years during the period between 24.3.2005 to 26.8.2005 amounts to discrimination against those employees who were made to superannuate at the age of 58 years during the said period, accordingly, these applications are disposed of with direction that the benefit of the extended retirement age to the corporation employees should also be given from the date of the resolution of the State Govt. i.e., 24.3.2005 with continuity in service but without the benefit of arrears of salary for the period as they have not worked during the said period. The aforesaid direction not to pay the arrears of salary shall, however, be subject to the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner of CWJC. No.6729 of 2005 and CWJC. No.7240, 7146 & 6939/2005.” Thus, it is luculent on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in CWJC. No.6729 of 2005 and other analogous cases, 3 whereby as has been indicated hereinabove the arrears of salary was not paid. Thus, as is noticeable, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge. Apart from the above, enormous delay really does not deserve to be condoned. A litigant cannot agitate his grievance in piece meal and thereafter invoke jurisdiction under the Letters Patent after sleeping for such a long time. The litigant who is not vigilant cannot harbour the notion that he can be a Rip Van Winkle and wake up after a long span of time to see a new world. Similarly he cannot behave like „Kumbhakarna‟. As far as the application for condonation of delay is concerned, we are constrained to think that the appeal has to be thrown overboard on this ground alone and, accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected and as a natural corollary the letters patent appeal also stands dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)