IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.174 of 2006 MOST.MONARKHA DEVI,wife of Late Nagina Paswan, resident of village – Rahui, PO & PS Rahui, District Nalanda ……. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Executive Engineer, Patna Building Division, Building Construction and Housing Department, Patna (Bihar) 3. The Accountant General (A & E) II, Bihar, Patna 4. The Senior Accounts Officer, Pen -3, posted in the office of the Accountant General (A&E) II, Bihar,Patna 5. The Treasury Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 6. Lakho Devi wife of Late Nagina Paswan, resident of village Rahui, PO & PS Rahui, District Nalanda 7. Assistant Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna ……….. Respondents ----------- 11- 3/11/2010 IA No. 8129 of 2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner presses this interlocutory application, which is in the nature of substitution application, wherein it is stated that the petitioner died on 28.10.2007, leaving behind her heirs mentioned in paragraph-1 of the application. It appears that this application was filed on 14.9.2010 after a lapse of three years. The delay is wholly unexplained. Secondly, the writ petition was contesting a claim for post-retirement benefits allegedly against the second wife of her late husband who died on 1.12.2000. The latter had preferred CWJC No. 7146 of 2002, which was disposed of in her favour by order dated 18.7.2005 which order is sought to be reviewed by the 2 present application. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the present application any further. Recall and/or modification of the said dated 18.7.2005, will have to be preceded by adjudication as to who was the first wife of the late employee which may be difficult in writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the present petitioner is dead and her children are not entitled to family pension. The position may have been different had the petitioner been alive, in which case this Court may have strained itself to consider the grievances of the petitioner on merits. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow substitution of the heirs of the petitioner. IA No.8129 of 2010 is accordingly rejected. Consequently, this review application cannot proceed in the absence of the petitioner. 2. In the result, this civil review application stands rejected. mrl ( S K Katriar )