IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.236 of 2010 1. RAM BALI SINGH S/O SRI ISHWAR DAYAL SINGH R/O VILL PARARI, P.S.KUDRA, DISTT-ROHTAS, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER NREP MADHEPURA IN THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEAPRTMENT (OLD PWD) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHWASHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA,OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT , VISHWASHARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 5. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 03. 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The relief sought is to shift the date of promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer from 1998 to 1993. He came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1995 which was disposed off on 12.7.1995 directing consideration of his case when the relief came to be granted from 1998. The ground urged for shifting of the date of promotion now in this writ petition filed in the year 2010, is that certain other similarly situated have been given promotion from 1993, in a writ petition filed by them registered as 2 C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1995, in pursuance of which necessary notification dated 3.12.1999 was issued. There is no explanation in the writ application why the petitioner had chosen to keep quite ever since grant of promotion from 1998 till 2010. If that were not enough, there is no statement in the writ application on what date C.W.J.C. No. 3147 of 1995 was disposed which obviously is prior to 3.12.1999 and why did the petitioner not moveD within reasonable time, whether it be 1995 or 1999 for shifting the date of promotion. The law stands well settled that similar relief claimed on grounds of parity with others can be denied if a person moves the Court belatedly seeking similar relief, but is unable to explain why he did not approach the Court in time for seeking parity with others. In (2007)2 SCC 725 (A. P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Others) at paragraph 40 the Court held as follows:- “40. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant 3 approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief.” In light of the aforesaid discussion, the relief claimed is highly belated and stale disentitling the petitioner to any relief on grounds of parity. The writ application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)