IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No. 232 of 2008 KRITYANAND SINGH, SON OF LATE RUPCHAND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE – GANUARY, P.O. – MANIYARI, P.S. – SARAIYA, DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR ……. ………………………………. (APPELLANT) – PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY – CUM – COMMISSIONER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCES), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY- CUM-ADDL. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCES), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 3. THE JT. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCES), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA, 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPT., MUZAFFARPUR ZONE, KALAMBAGH ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR, 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TIRHUT CANAL CIRCLE, RAMDAYALU NAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR, 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DRAINAGE INVESTIGATING CIRCLE, GANDAK PROJECT, RATWARA, MUZAFFARPUR, 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TIRHUT CANAL CIRCLE, GANDAK PROJECT, MUZAFFARPUR, 8. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, GANDAK INSPECTION BUNGALOW, MUZAFFARPUR, RAMDAYALU NAGAR, MUZAFFARPUR …… (RESPONDENTS) – OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 8. 27.04.2010. Heard Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Shanti Pratap, for the petitioner and Mr. Arup Kumar Chongdar, learned counsel for the State. 2 This is an application for review of the order dated 27.08.2008 by which this Court had declined to interfere in L.P.A. No. 1238 of 2001 on the foundation that the findings recorded by the learned single Judge were absolutely correct and the conclusion arrived at by him was impeccable. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State it is acceptable that the services of the petitioner were terminated as a daily-wager some time in the year 1991 and he approached this Court in 2001, that is, after expiration of a decade. The Division Bench had taken note of the fact that his appointment in a continuous manner was not established and, that apart, he was not holding a post. Regard being had to the nature of job he was doing and further regard being had to the factum of delay in approaching this Court, we are of considered opinion that the doctrine of delay and laches gets squarely applied to the case at hand and further there is no error apparent in the order passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1238 of 2001 and, accordingly, there is no scope for review. 3 Hence, the review application, being sans substratum, stands dismissed. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( C.M. Prasad, J. )