IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8433 of 2009 Nasib Lall Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2/ 05/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.12.1991 as Deputy Superintendent of Education. He seeks the relief for his salary with effect from 1.1.1990 to 31.10.1990 with penal interest. Further prayer is to quash the order dated 30.8.1999 by which his prayer for salary for the aforesaid period has been rejected by the authorities and it has been treated as leave without salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to salary is a continuing right relying on 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 661 to submit that delay in claim is relevant. It is submitted that against the order dated 30.8.1999 the petitioner had filed a review application on 24.9.1999 and which remains pending consideration till today. Reliance is placed on (2008) 7 SCC 538 (CHHABILE ALIAS RAM NEWAZ Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS) for the contention that directions may be given for disposal of the review application. Further reliance has been placed on (2007)(12) SCC 672 (ALLAHABAD BANK Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS), (2008)8 SCC 445 (ASHOK KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHR AND 2 OTHERS), (2008) 12 SCC 353 (GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKI Verus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS), 2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 106 (Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraph, Bijnor vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur & Anr.) and 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 8 ( Mohan Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar) to submit that in case of a continuing wrong the writ petition cannot be dismissed on grounds of delay. The Court has gone through the pleadings in the writ application. Paragraph-30 states that he and his family members suffered from hypertension and other diseases. Due to want of money proper treatment is not possible. There has been deliberate acts of omission and commission by inordinate delay in payment of the arrears causing day-to-day hardship to him and his family members. He is entitled to interest on the amount. That he has no other equally efficacious and speedy remedy. That there was no delay, laches and negligence on his part as he filed the review application on 24.9.2009 and represented on 5.2.2008 and 1.1.2009. He was expecting that his review application shall be considered and therefore did not move this Court. In Chhabile (supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the writ application and the review application were 3 dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. The Court proceeded on the reasoning that there had been a typographical mistake in mentioning the date of the impugned order and on basis of which fact the conclusion of delay had been arrived at. The foundational fact being wrong, the delay was condoned. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) the delay was of four years only. In the case of Allahabad Bank (supra) the delay was of seven years. In the case of Ganpatbhai (supra) the delay came to be considered in the background of allegations of fraud. In the case of Sub-divisional Officer (supra) it was the intervening circumstances which were taken into consideration for condoning the delay. In the case of Mohan Prasad Singh (supra) it related to a claim based on parity with those granted relief in similar cases. The Court is satisfied that none of them apply to the facts of the present case. The question of delay to deny discretionary relief under Article- 226 has been more a matter of discretion in exercise of power dependent on the facts of each case. There can be no straight jacket formula or a standard yardstick. Equally relevant shall be the question whether the Court should be applying its mind in favour of an indolent litigant or preserve the same for a vigilant litigant. There is no explanation in the writ petition why the petitioner kept quiet for nine long years till the order dated 4 30.8.1999 came to be passed. It was open for him to raise the question while he was in service also. He filed his review application on 24.9.1999 and again went to sleep till he claims to have submitted reminders in 2008 and 2009. The Court further cannot lose sight of the fact that the claim is only for ten months’ salary. In Indravati Devi’s case (supra) the facts were entirely different. It related to discharge of duties of a higher post in an officiating capacity. The discretionary remedy of the Writ Court cannot be invoked by a lazy and indolent litigant who has not been vigilant for the protection of his own rights. The claim for salary is a statutory right and primarily qualifies as a money claim. If a money suit is not maintainable today as barred by limitation, the petitioner cannot get relief under Article-226 on the same line of reasoning. The petitioner has himself alone to blame for his predicament. The application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)