IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1517 of 2009 Ramchandra Rai . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 07.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Choukidar seeks his full salary for the period of suspension from 7.4.1986 to 11.12.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental proceedings were held and punishment imposed. The suspension was therefore wholly unjustified and he is entitled to salary. It appears that the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16504 of 2001, substantially questioning his suspension seeking consequential reliefs. The order of the Court notices the submission of the petitioner that he had been appointed afresh. Consequently, the suspension stood revoked. The Court observed that he may represent with regard to his grievance for salary disposing the matter on 11.4.2005. The petitioner is stated to have represented for his salary on 11.7.2005. There is no pleading in the writ application in what manner the representation was pursued or why for four long years thereafter he kept quiet and did not pursue his remedy before this Court if 2 the respondents were not responding to his representation. The claim for arrears of salary makes out a money claim. The civil laws of limitation bar him from raising the same after three years. A claim for arrears of salary in a writ petition is also not countenanced after three years as held in (2001) 8 SCC 378 (Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar & Anr. Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti & Anr.) On the own showing of the petitioner he raised no grievance for more than three years past before the date of filing of the writ petition. Counsel for the State has pointed out that Choukidar became Government servant on 1.1.1990 and therefore any claim prior to that is not at all admissible. The Court on the facts and circumstances of the case is satisfied that the claim of the petitioner for salary is stale and much belated. He has himself alone to blame for his predicament for not having been alert and vigilant for protection of his rights notwithstanding the advantageous order from this Court. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)