IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3291 of 2006 HARINANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 16.4.2010. Heard Mr. Shyamdeo Prasad Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to G.A.1 for the State and Mr. J.P.Karn, learned counsel representing the Accountant General. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Head Master of Sri Lato Yadav High School, Meskaur in the district of Nawadah with effect from 28.2.1997. Although the admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner was paid to him, but according to him, some grievances remained leading to the filing of the writ petition in question. The petitioner has prayed for three reliefs, namely: (a) counting his services from 12.9.1963 up to 8.1.1968 as qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension and pensionary entitlements, (b) payment of leave encashment to the tune of 161 days and (c) Interest on provident fund amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his prayer for counting of the past 2 services, relies upon an order of the Division Bench passed in C.W.J.C.No.12830 of 1992 dated 2.12.1993 placed at Annexure-4 of the writ petition. He further submits that he is entitled to some more amounts toward unutilized leave salary and interest on the provident fund for the period September, 1997 to November, 1998. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the claim as regarding the counting of the past services for recalculation of pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner can not be allowed to be raised 10 years after the retirement of the petitioner and thus the same is rejected on the grounds of inexplicable laches and delay. In so far as the payment of leave encashment is concerned, the petitioner, if so advised, may raise his claim before the authority concerned with descriptive details and which should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. In so far as the interest on the belated payment of provident fund of is concerned, the same also having been raised after a lapse of 3 nine years, does not merit consideration and the same is rejected. The writ petition is disposed of with the observations aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)