← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/14743/2014dismissed

Suresh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-09-03Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14743 of 2014 ====================================================== Suresh Prasad Son of Late Yogendra Prasad resident of C/o Sri Ajay Kumar, House No. 77, 'Deo Giri Niwas', Mohalla - Birla Colony, P.S. - Phulwarisharif, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar Patna 2.

The Home Commissioner cum Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

6.

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

7.

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Personel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jhark 8.

The Commissioner cum Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

9.

The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General, Govt. of India, Hinoo, Ranchi.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Anuradha Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 03-09-2019 Order of punishment dated 16.10.2000, the effect of which is withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been challenged by way of this writ proceeding which has been initiated after 14 years. The petitioner has also not availed any departmental remedy. The petitioner has long back retired on 31.1.2001.

Patna High Court CWJC No.14743 of 2014(2) dt.03-09-2019 2/2 In the circumstances, this Court would observe that discretionary writ jurisdiction is not meant for such persons who sleep over their rights for years together. The petitioner cannot be permitted to wake up from his long and deep slumber and invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 casually and at any time.

The writ petition suffers from delay as well as latches, as petitioner has also not availed any departmental remedy, nor is there any justification for such long and inordinate delay. Writ petition stands dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U