IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14336 of 2008 KAMLESH PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.14345 of 2008 UMESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 09.04.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The relief sought is for a direction to either appoint the petitioners or to allow the petitioners to continue on the post of Shiksha Mitra as a Panchayat Teacher in Naubatpur Block. On the own showing of the petitioners their first appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for a period of eleven months was made on 13.2.2003. It was renewed on 26.2.2004 for another period of eleven months i.e. till 26.1.2005. The petitioners have themselves enclosed letter dated 20.9.2006 of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat that the third extension was never granted to the petitioners on expiry of the second term. The submission that they were granted a third extension in pursuance of any direction dated 19.9.2006, when the period of third extension that could have been granted to them in pursuance of the renewal granted on 26.2.2004 (valid till 26.1.2005) had also run out its course, is difficult for this Court to appreciate. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate a policy decision or a legal right to revive extinct claim and that too in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have consistently held that even if petitioner may have been wronged, if the time period upon which relief has been claimed has run out on facts during the pendency of the case, no relief could be granted except compensation. In (2201) 8 SCC 344 (Verigamto Naveen Vrs Government of A.P. & ors) the objection of the Government that after the expiry of the period of lease restoration of the properties was not possible, was upheld by the Supreme Court at paragraph 28 of the judgment relying on an earlier decision in AIR 1954 SC 165 (Kalyanpur Lime Works Limited Vrs State of Bihar) in which specific performance was denied in view of the fact that only a few months were left before the unexpired portion of the lease would run out. In absence of any third renewal granted during the period of eleven months when the claim subsisted, their claim by an order passed much subsequent to the expiry of the period of extension for the third term, this Court finds it difficult in law to uphold the claim of the petitioners. The writ applications are dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)