IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3374 of 2007 Manorama Devi, Wife of late Sardari Mandal, resident of village Ogri, P.O. Maisamunda, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur 4. The District Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur 5. The Area Education Officer, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 6. The Headmaster, Middle School, Khawaspur (Pirpainti) cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer 7. The Incharge, Headmaster, Primary School Thamar, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 11.8.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. While this Court would find it absolutely impossible to allow the prayer for payment of salary of the husband of the petitioner, namely, late Sardari Mandal, for the period November, 1990, August, 1991 to November, 1991, February, 1992 to March, 1992, July, 1992 to January, 1997 and September, 1997 to 5th June, 2003 not only on account of delay in filing of this writ application (which was filed on 19.3.2007) but also on account of the fact that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the post held by the husband of the petitioner in his report dated 27.11.2006 had categorically submitted a report that the husband of the petitioner had not reported on duty in the relevant period, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that in the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that some enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioner was still going on and therefore, this Court should issue a direction for completing of such enquiry. In the considered opinion of this Court such a stale 2 claim cannot be allowed to be revived by the direction of this Court. The authorities in fact have taken a clear view that the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur as with regard to payment of admissible claim of the husband of the petitioner was not capable of being complied in absence of proof of working of the husband of the petitioner in the relevant period. If thereafter some Officer has proceeded to look into the records for the purposes of finding out the so called claim of the husband of the petitioner to have worked in the aforementioned period, that may not be the basis for this Court to hold that any such claim is still subsisting. As a matter of fact the District Superintendent of Education himself in the subsequent letter dated 27.8.2007 had clarified that his earlier direction for payment of salary could only be complied if there was some documents to show the admitted working of the husband of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, a stale claim, as raised by the petitioner in this writ application, cannot be entertained by this Court. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/