IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12401 of 2022

======================================================

1.

Kumar Pawan Prasad Das Son of Krishana Devi Das, Resident of Village-

Ekdara, P.S. and Block-Khajauli, District-Madhubani.

2.

Shiv Kumar Das Son of Gangaram Das Resident of Village- Khajauli, P.S.-

Khajauli, District-Madhubani.

3.

Baidyanath Kumar Basuki Son of Maheshwar Prasad Yadav Resident of

Kishan Bhawan Road, P.S.-Jaynagar, District-Madhubani.

4.

Awadhesh Kumar Son of Jibachh Yadav Resident of Village-Biraul, P.S.-

Pandaul, District-Madhubani.

5.

Md. Sanaullah Ansari Son of Abdul Jabbar, Resident of Village-Quaziyahi,

P.S.-Khajauli, District-Madhubani.

6.

Kameshar Singh Son of Dhanbir Singh Residentof Village-Marukiya, P.S.-

Khajauli, District-Madhubani.

7.

Ram Praksh Singh Son of Chanchal Singh Residentof Village-Inarwa, P.S.-

Ghoghardiha, District-Madhubani.

8.

Saroj Kumar Son of Uttam Lal Prasad Resident of Village-Biraul, P.S.-

Pandaul, District-Madhubani.

9.

Anwarul Haque, Son of Abdul Ohid, Resident of Village- Sukki Dih Tola,

P.S.-Khajauli, District-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Educatrion Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani, District Madhubani.

4.

The Block Development Officer-Cum-Charge Officer, Khajauli Block,

District Madhubani.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the State

:

Ms. Namrata Singh, AC to GA-12

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH

SHARMA

ORAL ORDER

3

04-01-2023

1. The petitioner states that he was appointed as an

Enumerator regarding Socio-Economic and Caste Census 2011

for the period from 15.03.2012 to 20.04.2012 and prays that he

Patna High Court CWJC No.12401 of 2022(3) dt.04-01-2023

2/2

should be paid the remuneration for the said period including

travelling allowance. The writ petition has been preferred after a

period of ten years. No plausible explanation has been put

forward by the petitioner for not approaching this Court earlier

for such a claim. There is no document to show that the

petitioner has ever claimed the said amount soon after

performing his duties in 2012. The representation is also of

dated 18^th July 2022 alone. Thus, it is found to be a case of gross

laches on part of the petitioner. In fact, they never claimed for

the amount for almost ten years and have for the first time raised

the issue. Disputed questions of fact cannot be examined after

such a long delay.

2. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of

gross laches and delay.

Sachin/-

Item No. 18

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)

U