IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6170 of 2009 VIRENDRA KUMAR KESHRI @BIRENDR KUMAR KESHARI S/o Late Ram Bujhawan Prasad, Retired Draftsman, Bhagalpur College of Engineering, Bhagalpur R/O Village-Brahmpura P.S. Motipur District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Director, Department of Science and Technology, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Principle, Bhagalpur College of Engineering, Bhagalpur. 4.The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 5.The District Accounts Officer, Bhagalpur. ----------- 2 18/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner’s initial grievance before this Court is that after more than ten years of his retirement and despite an order dated 5.1.2006 in earlier writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2698 of 2001, his entire retirement benefits has not been paid. It has to be noted here that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.11.1999 and his grievance to that effect in the first impression seems to be justified that even after more than nine years of his retirement he had not been paid the full retirement benefits. It is however found from the order dated 5.1.2006 of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2698 of 2001 that a direction had been issued that all the retirement benefits of the petitioner must be paid within the time frame as indicated in the said order. Thereafter the petitioner had again raised a grievance that he had not been given the benefit of second time bound 2 promotion and as such he should be allowed to represent his case to that effect to the Respondents. This Court after considering that the petitioner was a retired employee allowed him to raise such claim, though it was wholly a stale and belated claim. The respondents thereafter have passed the impugned order stating therein that the petitioner was not entitled for the second time bound promotion because after getting his first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4. 1981 he could become eligible for second time bound promotion w.e.f 8.10.1989 but as he had also been given regular promotion with effect from 9.9.1986 and as such he was not entitled for the second time bound promotion. This order dated 5.4.2007 was initially sought to be assailed by the petitioner by filing a contempt application by taking a plea that the same was in violation of the order of this Court. This Court, however, on merits dismissed the contempt application by holding that as this fact of grant of promotion with effect from 9.9.1986 in detail has been recorded in his service book, there was no question of any violation of the order of this Court. After all these the petitioner had filed this writ application and now yet another grievance is sought to be high lighted while assailing the impugned order dated 5.4.2007 denying the second time bound promotion. Now counsel for the petitioner says that true it is that the petitioner had been given regular promotion on 9.9.1986 and therefore he was not entitled for second time bound promotion, but then the benefit of other 3 promotional benefits by fixing the benefit of 12-1/2% on such amount was not given while fixing his pay on the promoted post w.e.f. 9.9.1986. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate such grievance of the year 1986 after 23 years of cause of action which is wholly stale and belated. The petitioner has already been paid his full retirement benefits and it has already been decided that he was not entitled for second time bound promotion. Therefore, now nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner for the period of his service either by way of salary and/or retirement benefits. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had also made a prayer before the Respondents to grant first A.C.P and second A.C.P. and his representation for this purpose is still pending. Considering the fact that petitioner has already retired from service w.e.f. 30.11.1999, whereas, the government decision for grant of A.C.P. came into force only in the year 2002, this Court would not like to record any finding in this regard and leave it to the Respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)