IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1251 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3892 of 2009 ====================================================== Atul Kumar Verma S/O (late) Bipin Bihari Verma R/O 'Vandana' H-3, Abhiyanta Nagar, P.S.- Rajiv Nagar, P.O.- Ashiyana Nagar, Distt.- Patna .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary and Commissioner, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Govt., of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Engineer-in-Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Sinha, A.C. to AAG-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 19-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21st July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3892 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, a former Chief Engineer, retired on Patna High Court LPA No.1251 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 2 / 3 2 31st March 1998 filed the above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim promotion to the post of Engineer-in- Chief and consequential reliefs of revision of pay, pension and other retrial benefits. The claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the delay and laches shall not defeat the claim of the appellant. He has submitted that in case of continuous wrong the grievances should be redressed irrespective of delay and laches. More particularly, when any order made in favour of the appellant would not adversely affect a third person. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and others v. Tarsen Singh, [(2008) 8 SCC 648] and of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, [(2010) 12 SCC 538). The appellant was promoted as Chief Engineer on 12th June 1996. Since 6th May 1997 he was allowed to officiate as Engineer-in-Chief. It is the claim of the appellant that in absence of any other eligible person available he ought to have been promoted as Engineer-in-Chief by relaxing the requisite pre- condition. Under the relevant recruitment rules a Chief Engineer can be considered for promotion as Engineer-in-Chief after he works for four years as Chief Engineer. Admittedly, till his retirement from service the appellant did not become eligible for appointment as Engineer-in-Chief. The claim made by the appellant is totally misconceived. Besides, it has been made 11 Patna High Court LPA No.1251 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 3 / 3 3 years after his retirement. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)