Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard, Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Naiyar Hussain, Govt. Pleader No. II for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 (Settlement Officer Jharkhand, Ranchi). According to the writ petition, the petitioners late husband (Late Azijuddin Ahmad) was in the services of the Bihar Government who superannuated with effect from 31-12-1981 while he was posted as Assistant Settlement Officer, Senna, Rachi. He died on 5-5-1995. The petitioner complains before this Court that no part of the post-retirement benefits admissible to her late husband, nor the benefits admissible to her in the capacity of the widow consequent upon the demise of her husband, has been paid to her in spite of persistent efforts. 2. Learned Govt. Plaeader No. II appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has placed on record and submits that this writ petition raises such stale claims that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are unable to deal with the situation, inter-alia, because of absence of records. He further submits that the pleadings on record present a situation of confusion worse confounded. He relied on the following reported judgments of the Supreme Court: (1) 1994 Supp. (2) Supreme Court 342 (Tarun Bharat Singh V/s. Union of India). (2) (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 757 (Union of India V/s. Shankar). 3. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 (the Settlement Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi) has placed on record the counter affidavit and has supported the stand taken by Govt. Pleader No. II. 4. I have perused the pleadings on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to me on a perusal of the pleadings on record that the petitioners late husband never took any step for payment of his post-retirement benefits, and the petitioner has also taken the first step in this direction by filing the present writ petition on 21-3-2002 in a situation where, according to her own case, her husband died on 5-5-1995. I agree with the contention advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the respondents that they are unable to cope up with the situation on account of long lapse of time that has taken place in the present case and are unable to trace out the records. They are equally right in their submission that the delay has brought about a situation of confusion worse confounded. They are equally right in their submission that the delay has brought about a situation of confusion worse confounded. For example, Annexure G to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5 is photocopy of letter dated 29-10-2002 from the Department of Revenue and land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, to the Settlement Officer, Ranchi, wherein it is stated that the employee was born on 31 -12-1923 and, therefore, must have reached the age of superannuation on completion of 58 years of age on 31-12-1981, In fact, learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted during course of submission that he has retired on 31-12-1981. There is not the slightest explanation in the whole of the pleadings on record as to the delay that has taken place in taking the first step by instituting the present writ petition on 21-3-2002, preceded by the lawyers notice dated 11-9-2001 (Annexure 2), It appears no step at all was taken by the employee or the petitioner before the respondent authorities. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the employee was earlier posted at Darbhanga and he was transferred on 14-9-1977 to Ranchi where he reported on 8-3-1979. There is no explanation as to the reason for the same and how this period was ultimately treated. It further appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5, which is a photocopy of the employees application dated 26-5-1982 in his won hand-writing stating therein that this daughters marriage will be performed on 13-6-1982 and, therefore, leave may be sanctioned to him for the period 3-6-82 to 26-6-82. No explanation has come forward from anybody, nor I am unable to appreciate, as to how this application was submitted on 26-5-1982, when he had retired on 31-12-1981 and ultimately diedon 5-5-1995. thus, even the date of retirement is not clear. 5. This takes me on to another important aspect of the matter. Can the extraordinary, discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution be permitted to be invoked in the manner as has been done in the present writ petition. Can this Court take the load of such petitioners who are sleeping overtheir rights who are approaching this Court in such a situation. The respondent authorities also cannot be blamed for non-availability of complete records. Can this Court take the load of such petitioners who are sleeping overtheir rights who are approaching this Court in such a situation. The respondent authorities also cannot be blamed for non-availability of complete records. Law is well settled, and applies with greater force in the discretionary writ jurisdiction, that the petitioner must approach this Court in time, and should not sleep over his rights. This writ petition also raises disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. There is no explanation at all as to the delay that has taken place in approaching this Court. In this background. I do not think it to be a fit case for exercise of the discretionary writ jurisdiction. 6. I dismiss this writ petition painfully. It will, however, be open to the petitioner to institute a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction which, If instituted shall be adjudicated ignoring the observations made hereinabove.