IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2452 of 2003 GANGA NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH son of late Mundrika Singh, resident of village- Semra, P. S. Agarer, District Rohtas (Sasaram). …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner Patna Division, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram). 4. Circle, Officer, Chenari, District Rohtas. 5. Director, Provident Fund, Bihar, Patna. 6. District Provident Fund Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram). … Respondents. ----------- 7. 16.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. (i) The respondents may be commanded to allow first time bound and second time bound promotions to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1986 respectively. (ii) The respondents may be directed to sanction and pay the difference of arrears of salary on account of two time bound promotions. (iii) the respondents may be directed to allow crossing of Efficiency Bar and consequent increment in salary to the petitioner. (iv) Consequent upon clearance of Efficiency Bar, grant of two time bound promotions, post retiral dues of the petitioner may be revised and consequential difference of arrears of pension, gratuity and leave encashment may be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. (v) Current pension on the basis of revised increased salary may be commanded to be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner on month to month basis. (vi) The respondents may be commanded to sanction full and final G.P.F. of the petitioner upto date interest.” 2 From perusal of the pleadings it would appear that said time bound promotion in terms of resolution of Finance Department dated 30.12.1989 became due to the petitioner way back from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1986 but this writ application came to be filed in the year 2003 at a point of time when the petitioner had already retired from service in the year 1993 itself. There is no explanation for such a belated filing of this writ application. That apart, respondents have explained in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s case for time bound promotion was considered in the meeting of the Divisional Establishment Committee held on 30.6.1997 and since the petitioner had adverse entry in his ACRs’, neither he was found to be fit for time bound promotion nor for crossing of the efficiency. It has also been stated that the decision of said establishment committee was duly communicated to the petitioner on 11.11.1997 vide annexure- A to the counter affidavit. This Court, therefore, is satisfied 3 that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the aforementioned reliefs and consequently, this writ application being without any substance, must be and is hereby dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)