IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10315 of 2005 ARVIND KUMAR @ ARBIND KUMAR, son of Mangru Prasad, resident of village Mobarakpur, P.S. Silao, District Nalanda … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, New Secretariate, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 4. The Secretary to the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 5. The Principal, Shri Bachchu Prasad, Mahila Teachers Training College, Lakhanchand Mokama, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 2. 4.1.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The petitioner, a retired employee, after his retirement with effect from 28.2.2001 could remember only in the year 2005 that he was also entitled to certain financial benefit out of his first time bound promotion which became due to him on 1.12.1992 and which was also granted to him on 31.12.1999 while he was still in service. As a matter of fact the following relief prayed by the petitioner: “(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent authority to pay the entire monetary benefit with statutory as well as penal interest of first time bound promotion with 2 effect from 1.12.1992 pursuant to letter no. 2441 dated 31.12.1999 issued under the signature of respondent no.2 whereby and whereunder respondent no.2 was pleased to grant 1st time bound promotion as well as 2nd time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and 1.12.1992 respectively.” would go to show that the petitioner much after his retirement had tried to wreck up a wholly stale issue. As noticed above, the order of promotion of the petitioner as notified by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna on 13.12.1999 itself envisaged extension of financial benefit in terms of the decision of the Finance Department. There is however nothing to show that the Finance Department had taken any adverse decision and therefore after a gap of 10 years, this court would not like to issue any direction with regard to a cause of action of the year 1992. The absence of the counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the said grievance of the petitioner is fully stale, infact would leave no option for this Court 3 but to dismiss this application. That being so, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/