IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12621 of 2011 Bangali Ram, Son of Late Bhujhawan Ram, Resident of Village – Bhitverwa, P.O. – Gopalganj, District – Gopalganj. ………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Secretariate, Patna. 2. The Principle Secretary, Department of P.H.E.D., Government of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 3. The Principle Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Secretariate, Patna. 4. The Supttd. Engineer, P.H.E.D. Patna Division, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Patna Division, Patna East. 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ………….. Respondents ----------- 2 04.08.2011 Heard Sri Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sateshwar Singh, learned AC to Government Pleader No. 9, who appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/ State of Bihar and Sri Satyendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6/Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Respondents to make entry in the Service Book of the petitioner for the period 7.4.1956 to 6.4.1966 and thereafter fix pension and other retrial dues. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that petitioner is getting pension. The petitioner had retired with effect from 1.7.1996. In 2011, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to make correction in the Service Book. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of ‘Annexure-3’ to the writ petition i.e. a communication issued by the Office of Accountant General, (A&E) II, Bihar, Patna, to the 2 Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna had sought clarification from the Department regarding details of service of the petitioner for the period 7.4.1956 to 6.4.1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a Class IV employee and due to that reason earlier he did not approach the Court. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was argued that in such a stale matter this Court may not interfere. He submits that it is admitted fact that petitioner retired long back in the year 1996 and after lapse of more than fifteen years the petitioner has approached this Court. He submits that it is admitted position that petitioner is getting pension. In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that petitioner retired long back in the year 1996 it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage. Since the matter is stale one, the Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed. Praful (Rakesh Kumar, J.)