IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10435 of 2005 SATYAVRAT UPADHAYAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 9.4.2010. Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, learned Assisting Counsel to S.C.4 for the State of Bihar, Mr. Arun Kumar Arun learned counsel representing the Accountant General and Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand are present. Admitted position is that the post retiral dues of the petitioner had been paid to him during the pendency of the proceedings. As per the statement made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition, the arrears of salary for the period May, 1993 to January, 1994, 19.8.1994 to 31.8.1994, the difference of arrears of salary from March 1989 to November, 1997 and again from April, 1997 to November, 1999 was yet to be paid to the petitioner. The respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit with letter dated 20.4.2009 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur enclosing a statement showing that the arrears of salary to the tune of Rs.50,352/- 2 as also the difference of salary to the tune of Rs.1,44,809/- had been received by the petitioner as back as on 20.1.2002 and yet incorrect statement was made by the petitioner in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in spite of the said position, there is no statement as regarding the period with regard to the claim of the petitioner for the arrears of differential amount of salary from March, l989 to November, 1997 as per the details of differential salary enclosed with the supplementary counter affidavit. On examination of the records of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner has indeed been paid the differential salary for the period from April 1997 to November, 1999 by reason of the pay revision effective in the State from 1.1.1996 with actual payment from 1.4.1997. What the petitioner now seeks is to raise is an issue of differential amount of salary under the earlier pay revision effective from 1.1.1986 with actual payments 3 from March, 1989. This Court will not permit the petitioner to raise such a stale issue after a lapse of almost 16 years. This writ petition is disposed of in the light of the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)