IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8091 of 2005 1. Ram Ayodhya Mahto, Son of Late Gajadhar Mahto, resident of Village: Pachpakri (Tola- Herapatti), P.S.: Dhaka (O.P. Pachpakri), District: East Champaran, at Motihari. 2. Mohan Singh, @ Mohan Kr. Singh @ Mohan Kumar, Son of Late Bidya Narain Singh, resident of Village: Khoripakar, P.S. Patahi, (O.P. Pachpakri), District: East Champaran, at Motihari. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari. 4. The Officer-in-Charge of Patahi Police Station, District: East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Officer-in-Charge of Dhaka Police Station, District: East Champaran, Motihari. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 23.04.2009 Heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar alias Sanid, and Mr. Piyush Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of their salary for the period 1997-99, for having worked as Chaukidar. He relies on the order dated 20.1.2005 (Annexure-5), passed in C.W.J.C. No.12209 of 1999 (Basant Kumar Singh and others Vs. the State of Bihar and others). 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of 2 learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claim to have worked as Chaukidar during the period 1997-99. Their appointment letters are not on record. Their appointments are, therefore, of doubtful nature. Even if it were to be conceded for the sake of argument that they did work for the aforesaid period, the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, having been filed on 12.7.2005. Secondly, there is no knowing whether or not the said C.W.J.C. No.12209 of 1999 has raised an identical issue. Furthermore, the same was filed way back in 1999 itself, and the order dated 20.1.2005 (Annexure-5) had only called for counter affidavit. The order is, therefore, of no help to the petitioners. 3. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/