IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18136 of 2009 1. CHULHAI MAHTO / CHAUKIDAR NO.-6/4 S/O RAM KHELAWAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- RAMAULI P.S.- KALYANPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KALYANPUR ANCHAL, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 6. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, KALYANPUR POLICE STATION, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 15.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy relates to the age of the petitioner and the consequent date of superannuation. Whether it shall be 30.4.2008 as informed to him by the respondents on 25.3.2008 or whether it shall be April, 2012 as claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that earlier a Medical Board had assessed his age in 1992 on the post of Chaukidar against which he had represented leading to fresh assessment of his age as 41 in the year, 1993 by the Medical Board. In so far as his grievance with regard to the order dated 25.3.2008, superannuating him 2 from 30.4.2008 is concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court more than one and a half year thereafter only on 14.12.2009. In view of the fact that he has approached this Court long after his superannuation has taken effect and the master servant relationship has stood severed, any alleged representation by him on 8.4.2008 as claimed shall not revive the master servant relationship or condone the lack of diligence on his part. Had he approached this Court before his superannuation in April, 2008, the matter would have been entirely different. In the circumstances, this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction is not persuaded to revive his claim when he himself has allowed the order to operate, has attained finality for over one year and eight months. To that extent this Court declines interference. That this Court may have declined to interfere is a issue separate from the obligation of the respondents to consider his representation if he had filed any such representation before his scheduled date of superannuation as informed. If the petitioner has in fact filed such representation on 8.4.2008 that shall not absolve the respondents of their duty to consider the same and dispose it off 3 by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)