IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6884 of 2006 PREETI KUMARI, W/O Sri Gopal Mishra, R/O village Mai, Mohanpur Block, P.S. Barachatti, District Gaya. At present residing at Centre Bonbharari, Head quarter Sherghati, Gaya. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3.The Dy. Collector, Confidential Section, Gaya Collectoriat, Gaya. 4.The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. ----------- 2 13.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, “(i)For a writ of or in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.12.95 passed by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Gaya by which he had directed the Chief Medical Officer, Gaya not to give her two annual increment of two years (contain in annexure 1). (ii)For a writ of or in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to give the petitioner her full salary including increments of two years.” is incapable of being looked into by this Court because of these two reasons:- (I)Order of punishment withholding of two increments against the petitioner was passed on 2.12.1995 effect of which also came to end in the year, 1997 and therefore this writ petition filed on 15.6.2006 after more than ten years of cause of action is fit to be dismissed only on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The only explanation 2 that petitioner’s first writ application filed in the year 2001, C.W.J.C. No.391 of 2001, was dismissed for default would not improve the situation because that too was filed after delay of at least 5 to 6 years and thus was equally bad on account of delay and laches. (II)This second writ application, even if first writ application got dismissed for default, is not a remedy because earlier dismissal order would still stare in the face of the petitioner. The remedy for the petitioner was to seek restoration of the writ application which was dismissed for default instead of filing this writ application. Today by looking into the order of punishment of the year 1995, an event of 15 years back, this Court would not like to exercise its discretionary power because if the petitioner has not remained vigilant to her cause, this Court cannot come to the aid of a person who had slept over her right for a long period. That being so, this application is dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)