IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15602 of 2008 ------ Lal Babu Ex-T.T.E (Porter) Danapur, Eastern Railway Danapur, S/o Late Ram Singhashan Prasad, Resident of Jari Mohalla, P.O. & P.S.Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division Eastern Railway, Danapur. 5. The Senior Divisional Regional Officer, Danapur Division, Eastern Railway, Danapur. 6. Divisional Personnel Officer Danapur Division Eastern Railway, Danapur. 7. Chief Commercial Officer, Danapur Division, Eastern Railway Danapur. 8. The Station Master, Arrah. ……. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Advocate For the respondents- Railway : Mr. Binod Jee Verma, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 21st October, 2008. We heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was regularized as Ticket Examiner on 17th August, 1978. It is also not in dispute that a panel for appointment to the post of Assistant Guard was drawn in the - 2 - year 1987 and although his name appeared in that panel, he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Guard and his juniors are said to have been promoted. However, it was after fourteen years, i.e. in the year 2001 that he approached Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance of not granting him promotion to the post of Assistant Guard in the year 1987. The Tribunal rejected the original application principally on the ground of delay and also by observing that now the applicant has already retired. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that he made representation to the authorities pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in the year 2001 and that representation was rejected by the authorities. 4. We are afraid, that does not justify invocation of extra- ordinary jurisdiction as judicial intervention was sought by the petitioner after fourteen years of not granting him promotion to the post of Assistant Guard. Merely because the representation was made by the petitioner in the year 2001 as directed by the Tribunal does not improve the petitioner’s case, nor justify his conduct. 5. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil