IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13970 of 2001 MR.RAM CHANDRA PD.SINGH, RETIRED ASSISTANT TEACHER, MADHYA VIDYALAYA, KALI STHAN, PATNA CITY, ANCHAL-MALSALAMI, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THORUGH COMMISSIONER- CUM-SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, NEW SACHIVALAYA, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW SACHIVALAYA, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, PATNA PRAMANDAL, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA. 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 7. FINANCE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH FINANCE COMMISSIONER, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 8. HEADMASTER, MADHYA VIDYALAYA, KALI STHAN, PATNA CITY. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 9 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to give him second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1984 in the light of the Government Resolution No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981 and give him all consequential benefits thereof. In the writ application, it is mentioned that the petitioner was given second time bound promotion by a letter of the District Superintendent of Education, Patna dated 2 18.6.1991, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1. It is also pleaded that in the light of the second time bound promotion salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.2050 by order dated 1.4.1991, with effect from 1.4.1984. The said order has also been annexed as Annexure-2. However, in paragraph 13 of the writ application it has been mentioned that after lapse of few months his promotion was withdrawn arbitrarily without giving him any information, vide letter no. 11385 dated 18.9.1991 and subsequently recovery of Rs.22,350.80 Paise was made on account of alleged excess payment made to him, vide letter no. 6709 dated 27.8.1996 (wrongly mentioned as 1997). With the writ application neither letter no. 11385 dated 18.9.1991 was annexed nor letter no. 6709 dated 27.8.96 was annexed. Petitioner has filed one I.A. no. 6090 of 2009 on 17.9.2009. Along with the said I.A. the letter no. 6709 dated 27.8.1996 has been annexed. However, till today the letter no. 11385 dated 18.9.1991 by which the second bound promotion of the petitioner was withdrawn has not been placed on record. 3 It is clear that cause of action arose to the petitioner consequent to issue of letter no. 11385 dated 18.9.1991 by which his second time bound promotion was withdrawn. Admittedly, he was in service at that point of time. Hence his pay also must have been reduced. Therefore, even if he did not get the copy of the letter, he must have come to know about the same due to reduced salary released to him subsequent to the issue of the said letter. But this letter has not been challenged in this writ application. Moreover, petitioner has filed this writ application in 2001, after superannuation, i.e. almost ten years after cause of action arose to him by the said letter no. 11385 dated 18.9.1991. There is no explanation about this delay of ten years by the petitioner in the writ application. Therefore, only on the ground of delay and laches, the writ application is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)