IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7253 of 2003 BANKE BIHARI PRASAD, son of late Yadu Singh resident of village Bhagwan Bigha, P.S. Ekangar Sarai, District Nalanda. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Intermediate Council Building, Budh Marg, Patna- 1. 4. Shashi Nath Pandey, Father‟s name not known Asst. Teacher in Ram Nagina Pandey High School Ara, P.S. Ara, Distt. Bhojpur. ----------- 4 23.08.2010 Having heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents with respect to the following prayer, “(i)Appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders be issued directing the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from March, 2000 to May, 2000 ( the period of strike by the Secondary School teachers). His salary has been withdrawn by Respondent no.4 by forging the signature of the petitioner; (ii)Appropriate writ be issued during the respondent no.3 to enquire into the forged action of respondent no.4 who has received salary of the petitioner for the period of strike by forging his signature and after enquiry if the allegation is found to be true then appropriate action be taken against the headmaster, respondent no.4. (iii)Appropriate writ be further issued by issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondent Director, Secondary Education to pay the salary with effect from 1.7.1978 to 22.1.1981 for which period the petitioner was illegally deprived by the then headmaster of D.P. Rai High School, Deepnagar, Korai, District Nalanda (hereinafter to be referred as „the school‟), which deprivation was held to be illegal by competent court of law in title suit filed by the petitioner.” this Court is fully satisfied that the cause of action for the period 1978 to 1981 (paragraph 1 (iii) of the prayer 2 portion) cannot be allowed to be agitated on the ground of inordinate delay of almost 22 to 25 years of such cause of action. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner‟s claim for salary from the month of March, 2000 to May, 2000 has already been redressed and therefore this writ application for the remaining relief must be held to be bad only on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Recording the aforementioned submissions, this writ application is dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)