IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1403 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 17031/2009) 1. The State of Bihar through Home Secretary 2. Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Range, Dalmiya Nagar, Rohtas 5. Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Arrah ---- Appellants/Respondents. Versus Bachan Prasad, S/O Late Ram Shakal Prasad, R/O Vill.- Ramdihra, P.S.- Behea, Distt.- Bhojpur ------ Respondents/Petitioner. ---------------------------------- 4 24.8.2011 Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.3 as well as Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna against the order dated 1.2.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17031 of 2009 ( Bachan Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The writ petition was filed on 7.12.2009 and the order under appeal has been passed on 1.2.2010 itself when the case was taken up for hearing on the 2 very first occasion. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that he was not paid the entire monetary benefits of second time bound promotion given to him with effect from 1.4.1986 and also for a direction to shift the date of his second time bound promotion from 1.4.1986 to 12.9.1984. Further the petitioner had prayed for 24% interest and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Five lacs) for the undue harassment and loss caused to him along with cost of litigation. 3. The learned Single Judge by the order under appeal has directed the respondents (present appellants) to pay the monetary benefit of the said order to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, if not already paid. The appellants being aggrieved by the said order preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered in the order since the petitioner having superannuated on 1.10.1991 and 3 moving this Court in the year 2009, was not entitled to such relief on the ground of delay, gross negligence and laches on his part. He further submits that the writ petitioner being satisfied during his service tenure has become wiser after 18 years of his superannuation by raising claim in the shape of monetary benefit which would create unnecessary burden on the state exchequer and would also be unjustified after such a long gap. He lastly submits that in any view of the matter, without the appellants being given adequate opportunity to counter the case or the learned Single Judge himself coming to a finding with regard to the merit and entitlement of the writ petitioner, such direction as has been issued in the order under appeal, could not have been passed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not in agreement with the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petition itself was filed beyond any reasonable time from the date of cause of action, and thus the writ petitioner became disentitled for any relief on the 4 ground of delay, gross negligence and laches on his part. On this very short ground the order under appeal cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J.)