IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.503 of 2008 Mohan Mishra, son of Late Diwakar Mishra, resident of village Gara Tola, P.S. Fulparas, District- Madhubani. …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Dy.Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani 5.The Head Master, Govt.Middle School, Ratupar (Audhrathadi), District- Madhubani 6.Kameshwar Jha, son of not known, Head Master (Retd.) Govt. Middle School, Mahrail (Audhrathadi), District- Madhubani …………. Respondents ----------- 3. 23/06/2011 Admittedly petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher under the respondents. He enhanced his qualification to graduation in 1969. He had qualification of training also. Therefore, as per his claim, in terms of Rule of the Government, he became entitled for graduate trained scale with effect from 1.1.1971. Matter of grant of graduate trained scale to Assistant Teachers of the School was considered by the Department and by various orders same was granted. Petitioner also was granted graduate trained scale, but with effect from 16.8.1980, vide Annexure-1/A. However, another teacher, i.e. Respondent No.6 herein, was granted graduate trained scale with effect 2 from 1.1.1972 itself. Petitioner claims that the said teacher was junior to him and hence he was also entitled for grant of such scale with effect from 1.1.1972 instead of 16.8.1980. It is claimed that the petitioner filed representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5 to show that the claim of the petitioner was being considered by the authorities at different level. These correspondences range between the year 1981 to 1992. Thereafter petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.7.2001. Annexure-6 is typed copy of one representation dated 25.4.2007 without any receiving or any proof of its filing. Thereafter petitioner has filed this writ application on 4.1.2008. A counter affidavit has been filed and, relying upon Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the promotion to graduate trained scale to teachers of Middle Schools were not admissible with retrospective effect. This Annexure-A mentions about some judgment of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents was asked to take instructions as to on which judgment reliance was placed by the respondents 3 for issue of this letter, as contained in Annexure-A. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the judgment passed by a Full Bench of this Court in a batch of cases led by L.P.A.No.985 of 1986 was taken into account by the Department for issue of said letter. However, he fairly submits that in the said judgment of the Full Bench, there is no observation with regard to retrospective effect or otherwise for grant of promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Laxmi Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar, 2011(2) PLJR 934, to contend that in similar circumstances relief has been granted to another petitioner. In the light of the facts of the case, entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for grant of B.A. Trained scale with effect from 1.1.1972 instead of 16.8.1980, from which date he was granted the same, becomes irrelevant. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that the cause of action, if any, arose to the petitioner on 9.8.1980 itself when respondent no.6 was granted scale with effect from 1.1.1972. Although, petitioner did file a 4 representation at that very time but sat over the matter for more than 20 years till his superannuation with effect from 31.7.2001. Even after that, he sat over the matter for seven years to move this Court. The typed copy of representation, annexed as Annexure-6, which is dated 25.4.2007, does not bear any seal of receipt and therefore does not inspire confidence on this Court. Even if it is assumed that it was filed, that was filed, for the first time, after six years of his superannuation. In the circumstances, this Court finds that in view of the unexplained delay in the matter, petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)