IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13690 of 2009 1. SARASWATI JHA W/O SRI BHUPENDRA JHA MOH-CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, ROAD NO. 4, SIDHESHWARPATH, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-20, P.S- PATRAKAR NAGAR, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPRTMENT, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNAQ 3. THE DIRECTOR JAN SIKSHA, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASH BHAWAN, GOVT. OF BIHAR 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. THE UNDER SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VAIYAKTIC DAVA NIRDHARAN KOSANG, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims the relief for arrears of salary with effect from March, 1987 to 12.12.1988. He also stakes a claim for 18 % interest upon the same, having superannuated on 31.5.1997. There is no pleading in the writ application of any legal remedy pursued while he was in service or even after his superannuation till he filed the present writ application on 14.10.2009. On record is his claim that he filed a representation in 1988. After the representation of 1988, he claims to have submitted another representation only in the year 2007 as is more than apparent from his own pleadings and documents to Paragraph 16 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities on 24.11.1988 had observed that a decision on his claim for salary shall be taken later. Such decision is yet 2 to be made. Therefore, there is no delay on his part in approaching this Court. Additionally, he relies upon an order dated 10.8.1996 prior to his retirement written by the District School Inspector asking for certain information for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. He relies upon a judgment of the Apex Court in 2008(2) PLJR 266 and also submits that in cases where no third party rights have accrued, delay is irrelevant. The judgment of the Apex Court was on its own facts and that too in a delay of four years only. From the facts of the case, it is more than apparent that the petitioner has been indolent and not vigilant in the protection of his own interests. This Court in a recent order dated 15.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 13410 of 2009 where a similar belated claim with regard to difference of salary pursuant to removal of pay anomaly was claimed, as having been granted to anothers, considered similar objections with regard to delay and declined to interfere. In that order, this Court has also dealt with issues that the standards for exercise of discretion by Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be the same as they were a decade or too back. Mere non creation of third party right cannot be considered as sufficient justification in view of the ever increasing burden of the Court with multiplying litigation when one and all are now getting concerned about the delay in disposal of the case. After his 3 superannuation, when the petitioner is at leisure and needs to keep himself occupied to maintain good health, mind and body, he has chosen proceedings before this Court as the source for occupation for his mind and body. For like reasons as fully discussed in C.W.J.C. No. 13410 of 2009, there is no merit in this application also. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)