2025:JHHC:26451 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2734 of 2013 -- Suresh Prasad Singh son of Late Kamta Singh, resident of Dipuwa Mohalla Ward No.7, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa .......Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary Public Health Engineering Division (P.H.E.D.) P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Medani Nagar, (Daltonganj) Palamau. 4. The Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Garhwa, P.O.+ P.S Daltonganj Now at Garhwa P.0. +P.S.+ District Garhwa. 5. The Assistant Engineer Garhwa Public Health Engineering Department Garhwa, P.O.+ P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa. .......Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, S.C.-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C to S.C.-V --- 05/25.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to pay the due salary for the period since September, 2002 till filing of the writ application and also pay the current salary regularly. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Night Guard cum Pump Khalasi on 05.11.1987 and since then he is doing the service with satisfaction of his all higher authorities. 4. From the averments made in the writ application, it is clear that for the first time the Petitioner made representation on 05.07.2007 before the 4th Respondent to make payment of salary from September, 2002 and ultimately this writ application has been filed in the year 2013. Even in a money suit, the maximum period of limitation for filing the suit is 3 years. 2025:JHHC:26451 2 From the averments made in Para 10 of the writ application, it is evident that first representation was given on 05.07.2007 which is certainly much beyond the period of limitation calculating from 2002. There is no averment at all in order to demonstrate as to why the petitioner was sitting tight over the matter and was not approaching the concerned respondent if at all he was working with the respondent department. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk