1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13815 of 2009 BABUA PD.SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 03/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who claims to have retired on 30.1.1994, is before this Court with a claim for grant of 2nd time bound promotion and denial of certain increments in between the years-1973 and 1981. He claims to have represented for the same as late as 5.7.1990 followed on 3.5.2004. For reasons already discussed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13410 of 2009 this writ application is barred by gross and unexplained delay and laches. There is no assertion of fact of the mode in which the representations were served, nor is there any receiving of the same indicated. If the petitioner has represented as claimed on 5.7.1990 and on 3.5.2004 and in fact satisfies the Collector, Supaul, factually, in that event only this Court expects that his claim may be considered. This Court has already held that the claim is barred by gross delay and laches. This Court, therefore, considers it appropriate to refer to the order or the Supreme Court in (2008) 10 S.C.C. 115 2 (C. JACOB Versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER) to caution that any fresh orders to be passed by the authorities in pursuance of the present order shall not vest a fresh cause of action. This matter shall remain in the realm of the administrative discretion of the authorities. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)