IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9282 of 2004 No. 6883739H Ex-Havildar DVR/M.T. Ram Balak Jha, S/o Late Ramakant Jha at present Village-P.O. Jitwarpur Kunhira, P.S. Sarairanjan, District Samastipur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Chief of the Army Staff DHQ (AHQ) P.O. New Delhi. 2. The Chief of the Army Staff DHQ (AHQ) P.O. New Delhi. 3. Sub Area Commander Head Qr. North Bengal Sub Area C/o 99 APO. 4. LT.CO1.S.V.Jaichandran Coo42 Vehicle Company C/o 56 APO. 5. No. 6894467 NK/DVR/M.T. Azad Singh, A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. 6. No. 6883774 HAV/DVR/M.T. Balbir Singh, A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. 7. No. 6885109 HAV/DVR/M.T. Jogindar Lal, A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. 8. No. 6885249 HAV/DVR/M.T. Dutta Ram, A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. 9. No. 6885551 HAV/DVR/M.t. Shankar Das, A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. 10. No. 6885925 HAV/DVR/M.T. Som Datt., A.O.C. (R)A.O.C. Centre, Secoundrabad, PIN 500015. ---------- Respondents ----------- 5 22.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That by this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 24th Sept. 1984 passed by commanding officer Lt. ColSV. Jayachandran Coo 42 Vehicle Company C/o 56 A.P.O. as well as order dated 29.2.88 passed by R.S. Manner. Director General or Ordinance services. Ayudh, Seva Maha Nideshak 2 and Commanding the Respondents to promote the petitioner in the suitable post because R.N. 6+10 who are junior to petitioner and they are promoted NK. Subedar Subedar, Subedar Major. Hunni LT.Hunri Capt. etc.” Before learned counsel for the petitioner could have made submission on merit, Mr. Sarvdeo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as with regard to the maintainability of the writ application on the ground of delay as specifically asserted in paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “4. That aforesaid case is bar by limitation. The petitioner filed the aforesaid case for quashing the order dated 24 September 1984, after laps of more than 19 years and the petitioner has not submitted any valid reasons for filing the aforesaid case after over laps of 19 years. No cause of action arise under jurisdiction at Hon’ble High Court at Patna.” Counsel for the petitioner would like to explain the delay by submitting that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint, which got disposed of only on 3 10.3.1988 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application and would further submit that the petitioner was ill from 1.4.1988 and such illness continued till month of March, 2004 as would be borne out from the medical certificate issued by the treating doctor of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the delay of a period of twenty years in moving this Court from the date of original order is not at all explained. The petitioner was awarded punishment on 24.9.1984 and, thereafter, when his statutory appeal was also rejected on 27.12.1985/15.4.1986, he had no reason to wait for any further period. The petitioner in fact at that point of time was continuing in service of Army but he did not appeal the said order dated 24.9.1984 and/or appellate order dated 27.12.1985/15.4.1986. Thus the petitioner’s filing his own representation on 29.2.1988 after his superannuation from service of Army on 31.5.1987 would not explain the delay by taking help of the order dated 29.2.1988. Such order in fact was only 4 by way of disposal of his representation and will not change its color by becoming an appellate order in terms of the Army Act and the Rules framed therein. This Court has also carefully gone into the medical certificate and the annexed prescriptions from which it is clear that the petitioner was not hospitalized even for a day and was in fact treated for only one year between 1988 to 1989. Thus, the net result of his medical certificates also would be that they too were simply incapable to explain the inordinate delay in moving this Court. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced on account of the order of punishment dated 24.9.1984, inasmuch as, on account of reprimand and entry in the service record, he was debarred from promotion for a period of three years i.e. till August, 1987 and, therefore, if he had slept over his right during the remaining period of his service and could come out to file this writ application only in the year 2004, he has to thank his own stars. 5 This writ application in fact suffers from unexplained delay and laches of nearly twenty years and, therefore, the same has to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)