IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5972 of 2003 BACHU SINGH, son of Late Shiv Charan Singh, resident of village Korma, Police Station Warsaliganj and District- Nawadah… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner, Department of Education, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Home (Police0 Department, Freedom Fighter Directorate, Patna. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 18.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner reading as follows “ That this application is being filed for directing the respondent authorities to give to the petitioner the benefit of two years of extension of service consequent to him having participated in the freedom struggle as contemplated in the Notification dated 13.2.1982 (Annexure-5) or in lieu thereof to give him the monetary benefit by way of salary for two years as he has been illegally deprived of the extension of two years, for giving him the two time-bound promotions to which the petitioner is entitled in course of his service and for other reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in course of hearing of this writ application.” seems to be wholly misconceived inasmuch as the benefit of said provision recognizing the service of freedom fighter who later on joined the Government 2 servant was made by way of extension of service of two years amongst those who were in service on 31st May 1983. The Circular does also deal with the class of government servant who had already retired on 31.5.1983 but then the petitioner does not constitute the aforesaid class of those persons because admittedly the petitioner was in service as on 31.5.1983 and had retired only on 31.10.1983. Thus, if the petitioner for the first time had staked his claim only in the year 1994 and did not choose to move this Court or any other judicial forum within two years, he cannot now be allowed to claim the benefit of the said provision. The petitioner had filed this writ petition only on 8.7.2003 i.e. after 20 years of implementation of the scheme. Such scheme was only meant for the extension of service of two years and thus when the petitioner had slept over his right at the relevant time; he cannot now get any relief after 64 years of this country becoming independent and 37 years of the enforcement of the scheme. That being so, this writ petition is wholly 3 misconceived and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)