IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14134 of 2009 1. PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA @ P.K. SINHA S/O LATE DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD R/O VIKASH NAGAR, KATHIA, KURJEE, P.S. DIGHA, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA-CUM-MEMBER, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 07/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as a medical records clerk in the institute. The controversy relates to the date of retirement, whether it should be 58 years or 60 years of the employees in the institute. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was made to superannuate on 30.6.2005 at the age of 58 years. Notwithstanding the same, his services continued to be extended from time to time vide orders as presently annexed at annexure-5 series. In this manner, the petitioner, in fact, continued to discharge duties till 30.6.2007. Strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. 2 No.5337/04 in context of another employee of the institute that the age of retirement would be 60 years. Learned counsel for the institute urges that the petitioner accepted superannuation on 30.6.2005 and did not question the same. The subsequent order of this Court in the case of another who approached the Court in due time cannot be of advantage to the petitioner. Delay in approaching the Court by one who is not vigilant about his rights can be a good ground to deny him similar relief as granted by the Court to another. This is not a universal rule, but is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. Had the petitioner retired on 30.6.2005 and the institute had severed all relations with him at this juncture the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that consequent to his re-engagement and continuance upon the same he had received no benefit or retiral dues assumes vital significance. The factual position emerging is that the petitioner has, in fact, continued in service of the institute till the claimed date of superannuation at the age of 60 years. A Bench of this Court has already held that the age of superannuation in the institute shall be 60 years for reasons in law as discussed therein. 3 This writ application is disposed with direction to the respondent institute to examine the claims of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid factual premise read in context with the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5337 of 2004. The institute shall be required to give a personal hearing to the petitioner if he so requests. Thereafter a reasoned and speaking order on facts and in law is required to be passed by the authority of the institute if it is of the opinion that the benefit of the order of this Court is not available to the petitioner for reasons of distinction which must be adequately discussed and reasoned in the order. If the authority is otherwise satisfied of his eligibility it shall proceed to accord similar treatment to the petitioner. Let such decision be taken by the competent authority of the institute in the manner discussed, to facilitate judicial review, if the need arises, within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)