IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7976 of 2006 RAMJI PRASAD, S/O LATE BHATTU RAM, R/O VILLAGE BADGAON, P.S. NALANDA, DISTRICT NALANDA AT PRESENT RESIDENT NAGINA TANGA BHANDAR, BIRLA MINDIR ROAD SABZI BAGH, P.S. PIRBAHOR, DISTRICT PATNA. ...............PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA, BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIF. 3.DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIF. 4.DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NALANDA, BIHARSHARIF. 5.SHRI ALAKHDEO PRASAD SINGH, HEADMASTER ADARSH MADHYA VIDYALAYA, BARGAON AT PRESENT RETIRED, RESIDENT AT VILLAGE NARI, P.S. NALANDA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 6.SMT. PANNA DEVI @ PANO DEVI, W/O LATE JAGDISH RAM, VILLAGE BARGAON, P.S NALANDA, DISTRICT NALANDA. .............RESPONDENTS. ----------- 05/ 27.06.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner to the following effect:- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction for commanding upon the Respondent authorities to make payment of due amount which was payable to the father of the petitioner who died in service period after completing many years continuous Govt. Service as a peon and further directed to inquire the matter in the light of Annexure-2 by which after death of the petitioner's father forged person had been taken salary in the place of petitioner's father and after his death at present forged lady wife of the forged person is withdrawing family pension.” 2 cannot be allowed by this Court on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court as with regard to the cause of action of the year 1986. It is not in doubt, that the petitioner came to know that some person had allegedly impersonated his deceased father who had died on 28.08.1986, and was fraudulently continuing in service in the name of the father of the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner in the same representation dated 19.09.1986 (Annexure-2) had claimed his own compassionate appointment after the death of his father dated 28.08.1986, but thereafter he took no action for next 20 years except that he claims to have filed certain representations before the Authorities. Thus the delay of 20 years would stand in the way of the petitioner and therefore, his prayer for taking an action against the person who was allegedly fraudulently continuing in service or his widow who is now drawing pension cannot be allowed. Nothing said in this order however will come in the way of official respondents in examining the matter as to whether the respondent no. 6 had been validly sanctioned the pension and/or whether her husband was really in 3 employment of the State Government, so as to make the respondent no. 6 entitled to get family pension. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)