[1] S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6101/1998 Mahesh Chandra Tyagi Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr. March 31, 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDAR Mr. Mukut Bihari Sharma for the petitioner Mr. J.K. Agarwal, Addl. G.A., for the State The petitioner in this writ petition has retired from service as back as in the year 1993. He has filed this writ petition after about 5 years of his retirement in the year 1998 on the ground that at the relevant time, the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was not held and it was held after his retirement in the year 1998 and his juniors have been promoted from the back date, therefore, he should also be given the said benefit. It is required to be noted that without making any grievance at the relevant time, the petitioner has retired as back as in the year 1993. At that time, he had already been given ad hoc promotion on the post of District Education Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that at the relevant time, the [2] petitioner should have been promoted as Vice-Principal and not as District Education Officer. On the other hand, learned Addl. G.A. has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 672, wherein in para 13, the Supreme Court has held as under :- “13. In view of the statement of law as summarized above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents has acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief if granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussion on the financial management of the Nigam. Why the Court should come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence.” [3] I have heard learned counsels for the parties. In my view, the petitioner, who has already retired from service in the year 1993, cannot ask for a prayer that since after his retirement, that too after 5 years, the DPC has met, his case should also be considered for promotion. Such a prayer can never be granted especially when the petitioner had already retired from service and was not in physical service at the relevant time. The petitioner had already been given ad hoc promotion at the relevant time. Even otherwise, the petitioner, who has retired in the year 1993, has approached this court after about five years of his retirement in the year 1998. Considering the aforesaid aspect, such a stale claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated by this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this writ petition. This absolutely misconceived writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Notices discharged. (P.B. MAJMUDAR),J. Pramod Item No. 51