IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 1414 of 1998 BHUNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O- LATE BANARAS SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RAHIMPUR JADO, P.O. AND P.S.- MARHORRAH, DISTRICT- SARAN …….Appellant Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 4. THE ASSISTANT OFFICER (ESTABLISHMENT) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA …… Respondents ----------- 5 29.10.2009 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha for the appellant, and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 11070 of 1997 (Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh versus The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors), and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.1998, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. 3. It appears to us that the petitioner was in the services of the Bihar State Electricity Board. He was transferred to a different place which he did not join promptly. On the ground of delay in joining, the period 14.2.1989 to 4.4.1989 was treated to be as leave without pay. The petitioner was issued his pay slip on 30.6.1994, which clearly stated that the said period has been so treated, notwithstanding which he filed the writ petition after a 2 lapse of more than three years. The petitioner’s explanation that the time was spent in pursuing his representations before the authorities did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.N. Maltiar v. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1343, it has been held that an unprovided memorial cannot account for the delay. The admitted position is that there is no provision in the rules governing the terms and conditions of the writ petitioner for such a representation or memorial. Even the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. versus District Board, Bhojpur reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 802, does not support his case. The learned Single Judge has further observed that a civil suit would also be hit by the bar of limitation. 4. We entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )