IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1367 of 2009 Sadanand Paswan Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 4. 02.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner who claims to be a Chaukidar is aggrieved by denial of salary to him since May 1999 and the appointment of Respondent no. 13 on 16.9.2004. It is submitted that on the demise of his father in 1975 the petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar. Inadvertently the service records mentioned his date of entry as 1955 instead of 1975. His salary came to be stopped for that reason in the year 1999. He has been pursuing the matter by repeated representations commencing from 1999 till 2008. He is a poor person and therefore deserves sympathy by consideration of his case. If the salary of the petitioner has been denied to him since 1999, it raises a serious question of his philanthropic attitude in not raising a grievance with regard to the same for ten long years till 2009 when he filed the present writ application. The remedy resorted to belatedly was also available to him at the very inception. The law stands well settled that mere filing of representations is no explanation for delay unless a legal remedy was being pursued. If denial of salary for ten years did not irk him it also raises serious question as to whether he was in fact discharging duties. It defies common logic that a person shall continue to work for ten years without salary and for any period prior to the same and yet not raise a grievance. Delay in service matters is extremely vital especially when it creates third party rights and interest. On the own showing of the petitioner, Respondent no. 13 has been appointed allegedly in his place on 16.9.2004. The petitioner has still to explain the delay of five years thereafter in filing the writ petition allowing the Respondent no. 13 to be ensconed in the belief that he was safe and secure in his job due to latches on the part of the petitioner. In so far as any claim for salary prior to 1999 is concerned, the remedy of Money Suit is also not available to the petitioner today as barred by limitation. He cannot skirt that impediment by resorting to the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court without any explanation for the gross delay and latches. Sympathy cannot supplant the law to grant relief where the Court is not satisfied of the foundational fact. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)