Ramji Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11788 of 2008 ====================================================== Ramji Singh, son of Late Moti Singh, resident of village- Kakdidhahi, P.S. Mufassil , District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation ( North Bihar) Department, Muzaffarpur

4. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Muzaffarpur

5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Muzaffarpur

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manikant Mishra, GP-25 Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-09-2015 Heard Sri T.N.Matin, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ramadhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manikant Mishra, learned G.P.25.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondents to pay lawful pension to the petitioner and to give promotion to him on the post of Driller from the date, his juniors were given promotion on the said post. So far the first relief of the petitioner regarding grant of lawful pension is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that this relief has already been granted to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11788 of 2008 (4) dt.03-09-2015 2/2 Only he has pressed the petition to direct the Respondents for granting promotion as Driller from the date, on which juniors to the petitioner were promoted. It has been submitted that one Kamal Prasad Ram, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted on the post of Driller on 30.06.1982. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation raising his claim, however no decision was taken on his representation and, thereafter, the petitioner superannuated on 31.08.1989. Though the petitioner had retired in the year 1989, he approached this Court in the month of August, 2008 with a prayer to grant relief, for which cause of action arose in the year 1982 itself. After such delay certain relief, as has been claimed in the present writ petition, may not be granted. Since part of the relief has been granted, there is no need to pass any further order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U