IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6542 of 2011 RAM NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE MATHURA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADAN SATH, P.S. DAUDPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF SARAN ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE ALLAHABAD BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA – 400001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, KOLKATA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE), ALLAHABAD BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH MARG, KOLKATA. 4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALLAHABAD, MORADPUR BRANCH, PATNA. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 18.4.2011. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents/Allahabad Bank. The petitioner in extraordinary writ jurisdiction has prayed for directing the respondents/Bank to consider his appointment with effect from 1.12.1972 and thereafter, calculate his entire retiral dues. The petitioner, as per pleading, was appointed as Part Time Clerk in Allahabad Bank on 1.11.1972. Subsequently, his service was terminated with effect from 17.12.1976. However, on 20.11.1982, he was appointed in regular service as Clerk. 2 After his appointment, he raised the dispute for his initial date of appointment and vide circular dated 30.4.1993, predating was accepted and his service was predated with effect form 28.10.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner retired with effect from 29.2.1996. It is not in dispute that petitioner, after retirement, had received all the retiral dues. It further appears that petitioner thereafter raised a dispute before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and finally the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, by its order dated 2.11.2009, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. One of the main ground for rejection of claim by the Assistant Labour Commissioner was that the matter was stale one and petitioner, after retirement in the year 1996, had received all the retiral dues. The order of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the petition. Surprisingly in the present writ petition, the petitioner has not at all 3 made a prayer for quashing of the order of Assistant labour Commissioner nor the petitioner has brought on record, the order whereby he was appointed in the year 1982. The court is of the opinion that since the petitioner had already retired in the year 1996 i.e. on 29.2.1996 and received all the retiral dues, after such a long delay, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Moreover in the writ petition, the petitioner has not even brought on record his appointment letter dated 20.11.1982, nor the communication, whereby in the year 1972, he was appointed as Part Time Clerk in the Bank. In absence of any specific pleading as well as on the ground of delay of several years, no relief can be granted. The writ petition stands rejected. N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)