IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.115 of 2009 Bali Ram Singh @ Bal Ram Singh, Son of Late Bachchan Singh, Resident of Village – Azad Nagar, Ward No. 1, P.S. – Bhabhua, District – Kaimur (Bhabhua). -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director in Chief cum Special Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Durgawati, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Provident Fund Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. ---------- Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 19.12.2011 Heard Sri Kali Prasanna Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kaamil Akhtar, learned A.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 9, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 to 4 & 6 and Sri J.P. Karn, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5 /Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner, who retired as ‘Basic Health Inspector’ from Primary Health Centre, Durgawati, while filing the present writ petition had prayed for directing the Respondents to pay statutory interest on delayed payment of his retiral dues. The petitioner in paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition has given description of delay in payment of retiral dues. It has been stated that gratuity amount was paid after delay of six months, final gratuity after 28 months, earned leave encashment after six months, provident fund after 12 months and pension after 24 months. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by 2001 all his retiral dues was paid whereas the petitioner retired in the year 1999. No reason has been assigned in the writ petition as to why thereafter 2 delay of more than eight years has occurred in filing the present writ petition. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the relief sought for in the present writ petition he had filed number of representations. Even he had approached Lokayukta for claim made in the present writ petition. The court is of the opinion that in such belated matter no relief can be granted particularly on the point of interest on delayed payment. Fact remains that the petitioner retired in the year 1999 and thereafter all the retiral dues to the petitioner was paid in the year 2001. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)