Patna High CourtCWJC/19660/2015dismissed

Ram Naresh Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-05Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19660 of 2015 =========================================================== Ram Naresh Singh, S/o late Sipahi Singh, Resident of Village: Lalganj, P.O. Naudiha P.S. Khijarsarai, District : Gaya at Present resident of C/o Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, Maa Mansa Complex, Mohalla:

Kushawaha Colony, Ramchandarpur, near Machhi Market, Biharsharif, District Patna, Pin-803116 .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Panchayati Raj Secretariat, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Arwal.

4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, District Arwal.

4. The Block Development Officer, Karpi, District Arwal.

5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, A.C. to G.A.-1 For the Accountant General : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-01-2016 The petitioner retired as Panchayat Sachiv with effect from 31.05.2007. He was initially appointed as Panchayat Sevak on 27.07.1985 and was granted time bound promotion with effect from 27.07.1995 by letter, dated 08.07.1997.

It is the petitioner's case that though he was given time bound promotion with effect from 27.07.1995 but monetary benefit arising out of such time bound promotion has not been given to him. From the pleadings on record, I do not find any explanation as to why the petitioner did not take steps within a

Patna High Court CWJC No.19660 of 2015 dt.05-01-2016 2/2 reasonable time, after he was denied the monetary benefits arising out of time bound promotion granted to him in the year 1997, till he remained in service up to 31.05.2007. The present application has been filed eight years after the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation.

In my opinion, the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India suffers from vice of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, which cannot be entertained at such belated stage.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Vats/- U