IZHARUL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Harendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Jawahar Dhari Singh, leamed Government Pleader No. I for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 15, and Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan for respondent no. 5 (The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna). According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government in November, 1951, as a Health Worker. It further appears from the statement made in the petitioners supplementary affidavit that he was transferred from Nohka Block to Devat Block which he did not join till the date of his superannuation on 31.1.1992. He thus continuously remained absent from January, 1973 to January, 1992. The petitioner complains before this court that his post -retirement benefits on the basis of his service for the period November, 1951 to December, 1972, is not being paid to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want credit for the period 1.1.1973 to 31.1.1992.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader No. 1 raises two -fold objections. The writ petition suffers from delay. In his submission, the petitioner superannuated on 31.1.1992 and the present writ petition has been instituted in this Court on 19.7.2000, i.e. after unexplained delay of more than eight years. No attempt has been made to explain the delay in the writ petition. He next submits that the writ petition suffers from the vagueness and inadequate pleadings, aspect of the matter, which has been noticed by this Court by order dated 10.12.2001 and passed the following order: "It appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the facts have not been stated in the petition itself and the writ petition is based on the rulings of this Court. But the tactual aspect remains the same. Such sort of drafting of writ petition on ruling basis submission is deprecated. However, considering the case of the client, another opportunity is supplemented to the writ petitioner within three weeks next." Thereafter the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit which is also inadequate.