2025:JHHC:33170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5963 of 2025 ------ 1. Srikant Tiwary, son of late Kedarnath Tiwari, resident of Samriddhi Enclave, Flat No. A/3, 3rd Floor, Near Junior DAV School, P.O Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, Kanke Road, Ranchi. 2. Deo Kumar Singh, son of late Rambilash Singh, resident ofGandhinagar, Qrs. No. 1/A 46, Near Private House, Kanke Road, P.O Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, Kanke, Ranchi. 3. Shiv Prasad Ram, son of late Bilash Ram, resident of village Bukru, Bukru Chowk, Opposite Blue Bird Restaurant, P.O Bukru, P.S. Kanke, Ranchi. 4. Sudhir Ram, son of late Bigu Nayek, resident of Silwai, Ranchi, P.O and P.S. Tatisilway, Ranchi. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited/Govt. Of India, Public Sector Undertaking, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, office at Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Manager, Department of Personnel/Administration, CMPDI, office at Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, P.O Ranchi University, P.S- Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Registration Officer, Social, Economic and National Census 2011, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s Niladri S. Mukharjee & Sandhya Singh, Advocates For RMC M/s Prashant Kr. Singh and Karbir, Advocates. For Resp. No. 2 Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate. ------ 05/06.11.2025: Heard the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for making payment of overtime work, which they have done to conduct Census, conducted by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the year 2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that during the said period i.e. in the year 2011, the petitioners being the employees of CMPDI, had worked and had taken part in census process and had worked on Holidays as well as Sundays and Saturdays also, thus they are entitled for overtime benefits, which have not been paid. He submits that the petitioners have given several representations, but the amount has not been paid. 4. The learned counsel for the CMPDI submits that the petitioners had worked for census in the year 2011 and now this writ petition has been filed in the year 2025. Further letter dated 06.01.2025 suggests that no dues lying outstanding on CMPDI on these petitioners. The aforesaid letter is also not under challenge. Further, I find that the petitioners in paragraph 16 have stated that their claim has been turned down on the ground that there is no due, as claimed by them. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners had participated and worked for census process sometime in the year 2011 and they have filed this writ petition in the year 2025 claiming that the overtime benefits have not been paid to them. The respondents have stated that the entire overtime amount, which the petitioners are entitled to receive, have already been paid to them. 6. After fourteen years, the petitioners have approached this Court claiming that their overtime benefits have not been paid to them. 7. Considering the delay and laches and the disputed question of fact, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 06th November, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2.