IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.261 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 9308 of 2005 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 1106 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 261 of 2011 ==================================================== Most. Poli Devi, W/o Late Gudar Mandal, resident of Village- Hariraha, P.S.-Karjain, District-Supaul. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Building, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, West Kosi, Nahar Anchal, Madhubani. 4. The Executive Engineer, West Kosi Jalwahan, Pramandal, Benipatti, Madhubani. 5. The Additional Divisional Officer, (Awar Pramandal Padadhikari), West Kosi Jalwahan, Anchal, Division-1, Benipatti, Madhubani. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mrs. Sheela Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, AAG-6 with Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C. to AAG-6 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 10.2.2011. The delay of 20 days occurred in filing the appeal is condoned. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 9308 of 2005 the writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal under - 2 - clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is the widow of one Gudar Mandal. The said Gudar Mandal was employed as a Chowkidar under the respondent no.4, the Executive Engineer. On reaching the age of superannuation he was retired from service on 31st July 1997. Since his retirement he passed away in the year 2000. Five years thereafter, in the year 2005, his widow-the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a declaration that the correct date of birth of the deceased Gudar Mandal was 1944 and not 1939 as recorded in the service book. The learned single Judge has examined the records; rejected the claim and has observed that the deceased had joined the service in the year 1969 at the age of 30 years, according to his own saying. In absence of any other material the say was accepted and his date of birth was recorded in the service book as that of 1st September 1939. Learned advocate Mrs. Sheela Sharma has appeared for the appellant. She has vehemently argued that the deceased was an illiterate person. His widow, therefore, has a right to maintain the writ petition on behalf of the deceased. She has submitted that all along the date of birth recorded as 24th September 1944 could not have been altered to 1st September 1939; nor could the deceased have been retired in 1997. She has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S. K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and - 3 - Another {(2003) 1 SCC 184} and of Union of India and Others v. Shantiranjan Sarkar {(2009) 3 SCC 90}. She has submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgments the delay should not defeat the cause of any illiterate widow. We are unable to agree with Mrs. Sharma. At first, the right to service is a right in personam. The deceased employee never complained about the date of birth recorded in his service-book; nor did he complain about his superannuation in the year 1997. The appellant, though is the widow of the deceased, has no locus standi to maintain the petition on behalf of the deceased. Apart from the maintainability of the petition the learned single Judge has examined the record and has not found any merit in the claim made by the appellant. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 1106 of 2011 is disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)