IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1067 of 2009 Raj Kumar Prasad, Son of Late Sita Ram Bhagat, Resident of Village Amrapara P.O. and P.S. Amrapara, Distt. Pakur, State of Jharkhand at present Block Officer Haweli Kharagpur, District Munger, Bihar. ---------- Petitioner/Appellant -:Versus:- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Munger. 3. The District Welfare Officer, Munger. 4. The B.D.O., Haweli Khargpur, Munger. 5. The State of Jharkhand. 6. The D.C. Pakur, Jharkhand. (District Commissioner) 7. The District Welfare Officer, Pakur, Jharkhand. 8. The B.D.O. Litipara Pakur Jharkhand. (Block Development Officer) --------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner/Appellant :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. For the Respondents :- Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee Mr. Rajesh Kr. No.1 (GP-8) Mr. Satyavrat Verma (Resp. 5 to 8) ----------- 4 08.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant writ petitioner, being aggrieved by an order dated 30.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 5356 of 2009, has moved in appeal by taking a plea that it has been incorrectly held by the learned single Judge that the writ application had been filed with regard to the belated cause of action and in this context, he has referred to the prayer in the writ application wherein a direction is said to have been sought from this Court for making payment of salary of the appellant writ petitioner from the month of May, 2007 along with release of the Last Pay Certificate (L.P.C.) and Service Book. 2 From reading of the writ application, it would be clear that the appellant writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Welfare Supervisor in Pakur district of the erstwhile State of Bihar and had been subjected to departmental and criminal proceeding for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,25,500/- which was given to him by way of advance for completing certain scheme in Litipara Block. Such criminal case against the petitioner being Litipara P.S. Case No. 11 of 1996 dated 20.3.2006 for offence under Sections 406/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against him. It appears that subsequently in the year 1998, vide order of the competent authority of the Welfare Department, he was transferred from Pakur district to Munger district but as the petitioner had not returned the amount of advance of Rs. 1,25,500/-, his Service Book and L.P.C. was withheld and consequently at the transferred place of posting, the appellant writ petitioner continued to draw his salary at the minimum of the pay-scale (basic pay) though it is claimed by the appellant writ petitioner in the writ application that from 1998, he had been filing representations but then the writ application was filed by him only in the year 2009 claiming benefit of full salary by seeking a direction for issuance of L.P.C. and 3 Service Book. Obviously, the petitioner had made a concealed prayer for withholding of his full salary for the period 1996 onwards which definitely made the cause of action referable to some fifteen years back from the date of filing of his writ application on 24.4.2009. We, therefore, find no error in the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ application on the ground that it was suffering from unexplained laches and delay. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner that he had submitted a measurement book in which such advance could have been adjusted again would be racking up an issue of the year 1996 and this Court in exercise of power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the accounting specially when in the year 2009, Pakur also not remained part of the present State of Bihar in view of Bihar Re-organization Act placing Pakur district under the State of Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000. We, therefore, without interfering with the order of the learned single Judge would only observe that if the appellant writ petitioner deposits the amount of Rs. 1,25,500/-, the admitted advance taken by him and/or is exonerated in the 4 departmental and criminal proceeding, it would be open for him to get his L.P.C. with the correct entries for claiming his salary which would be payable to him from the date of filing of the writ application i.e. 18.8.2009. We must hasten to make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the claim of the appellant writ petitioner as with regard to part completion of the work allotted to him and the adjustment of the amount of advance in such work. Nonetheless, the appellant writ petitioner cannot be allowed to remain under the continued ignominy of his being subjected to criminal case and departmental proceeding for life long and therefore, the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand would be well advised to take a final decision as with regard to the appellant writ petitioner at an early date. Subject to the aforementioned observations, this appeal is dismissed. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)