IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1252 of 2009 Dholan Dusadh @ Dholan Paswan . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 28/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A conjoint reading of the writ petition and the counter affidavit leave no controversy that the petitioner has been appointed as a Chaukidar by an order dated 2.4.1993 and is being paid his salary thereafter. The controversy relates to a period prior thereto. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to salary for January,1990-1993. Paragraph-7 of the writ petition states that nothing has been paid to him during that period though he has been made to work. The counter affidavit in paragraph-5 specifically states that he has worked as an ‘Ewaji Chaukidar’ since 1991 to 1993 and the admissible salary in the old scale was paid vide a report dated 30.7.2009 of the Officer-in-Charge, Chand Police Station. There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner Submits that the payment made was not in accordance with the regular pay-scale. 2 The Court is satisfied that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands when he contends that nothing was paid. Alternately, if the petitioner were to file a money claim before the Civil Court today, it would clearly be barred by limitation. He cannot be permitted to circumvent the common laws of the land by resorting to the expeditious remedy of the writ jurisdiction to press time barred claims. The application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)