IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6441 of 2009 Randhir Prasad & Ors . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were terminated long years ago in 1998. The writ petition has been filed nearly 11 years later. The Court does not consider it a sufficient ground to condone the unexplained delay, only because others similarly situated may have come to the Court in time in 1998 and obtained relief. Those who were not vigilant in pursuing and protecting their rights and interests cannot be put at par with others and are not entitled to relief on basis of parity alone. To that extent there is no merit in the writ application. In (2008) 17 SCC 668 (Punjab Small-Scale Industries and Export Corporation Limited v. Jhujhar Singh) it has been held at Pargraph-7 as follows:- “7. From the dates and events mentioned above, it appears to us that Respondent 1 was not vigilant and did not approach the High Court seeking remedy within the reasonable time. It appears, he was watching the proceedings in the writ petitions filed by 37 other petitioners. When they 2 got the relief, he became active and as claimed, made a representation. Even thereafter, he did not file the writ petition immediately, in other words, the Division Bench pronounced the judgment on 13-1-1994 but he filed the writ petition on 10-3-1996, that is, after more than two years. Probably, Respondent 1 wanted to take advantage of the relief granted to other writ petitioners who had approached the High Court early. It is unfortunate that the High Court did not focus its attention on this aspect even when the appellants had specifically pointed out this aspect of delay and laches on the part of Respondent 1………” On the second submission that there were certain arrears of salary prior to 1998, the Court permits the petitioner to represent for the purpose but any consideration and payment has to be confined to the period 1995 to 1998 only and not prior to that. In (2001) 8 SCC 378 ( Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar v. Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti) it has been observed at Paragraph-13 as follows:-: “13. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that it is unbelievable that the appellants were not paid their salary for the last 10 years, as at no point of time, the appellants had made any grievance either to the Head of the Department or to the management in respect of non- 3 payment of salary. If the appellants were not paid salary, they ought to have made a representation to the Head of the Department or gone to a court of law for recovery of arrears of salary which they did not do so. Therefore, they are not entitled to arrears of salary for the last ten years. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to arrears of salary only for the last 3 years……” The last submission on behalf of the petitioner is very fair and therefore the Court directs that if an advertisement is issued and the petitioners apply in response to the same, the respondents are expected to consider the same in accordance with law not to be vitiated by their earlier terminated status. The writ application stands disposed on the latter two aspects. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)