IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4574 of 2010 1. Ayodhya Prasad S/O Late Budhya Mahto R/O Vill.- Sasour, P.O.- Chero, P.S.- Sarmera, Distt.- Nalanda At Present- Mini L.I.C. Colony, P.O.- Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.- Chitragupta Nagar, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Commissioner Food And Civil Supplies Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate Gopalganj 5. District Supply Officer Gopalganj 6. Sub Divisional Officer Hathua, Distt.- Gopalganj 7. Block Development Officer Vijaypur Block, Distt.- Gopalganj ----------- 4. 30.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks fixation of his pay scale after his superannuation on 31.1.1996. The writ petition has been filed nearly 14 years later. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the pleadings contained in Paragraphs 10 to 14 in support of the explanation for the delay. From the various grounds taken separately in Paragraphs 10 to 14, first with regard to the death of his wife some years before his retirement and tender age of the children, that he went into deep depression, that he had a financial crisis, that he could somehow garner resources, that he then came out of depression, leaves the Court satisfied that he is fishing for grounds to explain the delay. In (2004)10 SCC 679 (Balwant Singh 2 Narwal v. State of Haryana) the Supreme Court upheld the objections for a belated claim with regard to pay scale as follows:- 3…..Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar4 held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies…..”. The petitioner himself places an order in C.W.J.C. No. 4355 of 2010 disposed off on 10.5.2010 preferred by him for retiral dues disposed with directions to represent. There is no reason why the present claim of pay scale was not included therein. The petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate his claims in piecemeal by preferring repeat writ applications. However, if the representation of the petitioner filed in pursuance of C.W.J.C. No. 4355 of 2010 has not been disposed till date, the petitioner may supplement his representation with regard to the present relief. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)