IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.178 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH @ ASHOK SINGH son of late Ram Naresh Singh, resident of village Fatehali, Post Tungi, P.S. Bhadaur, District Nalanda. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The District Co-operative Officer, Gaya. ----------- 3 4/5/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application of the petitioner is quite simple and plain in nature as would be evident from the perusal of paragraph no.1 reading as follows:- “That this application is preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s) preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner all retrial dues of his late father, who died on 28.9.1991 while surviving the post of Co- operative Extension Officer, Imamganj, Gaya.” Counsel for the petitioner however seeks to assail the order dated 18th November, 1994, whereby and whereunder, upon detecting certain forgery in the government record recording the date of birth of father of the petitioner, the original employee in question, it was directed that there should be computation as to how much extra salary was drawn by the father of the petitioner on account of his fraudulent continuance in service in the period 1.9.1984 to 28.9.1991. As a matter of fact, such order passed in November, 1994 which has been sought to be assailed by filing of this writ application in an indirect manner in the year 2009 is not 2 permissible both on the grounds of specific prayer to this effect as also on the ground of unexplained delay and laches of nearly 15 years. That apart, when the respondents have already made it clear that they are not going to recover the amount of family pension already paid to the wife of the deceased original employee, the petitioner claiming to be the son should not be now worried because the respondents have also not sought to make any recovery from him. The real rub, however, appear to be somewhere else. The petitioner wanted to be appointed on compassionate ground as would be evident from one of his application dated 20.2.1996 but when he had not been able to get his appointment on compassionate ground he has filed this innovative writ petition in 2009 for payment of retirement benefit of his father. All the retirement benefit of the father of the petitioner however had already settled with and paid to his widow who infact had also received the family pension, till her death. The State Government also does not propose to recover any amount from the family pension of the widow, and therefore this writ petition in the garb of an application for payment of retirement benefit of his father seeks to question the charge of date of birth of his father vide an order dated 14.11.1994. Such prayer therefore would no longer be in the realm of retirement benefit. If the petitioner feels so aggrieved by Annexure-2 he may seeks any other remedy as may 3 be available to him in law. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)