IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11894 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Gore Lal Mari S/O Baldeo Mari R/O Vill.- Menha, P.S. + Distt.- Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Department Of Minor Irrigation, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Koshi Command Area Development Agency (Kada) Saharsa Through Its Secretary 3. The Chairman, Koshi Command Area Development Agency Sharsa- Cum-Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa 4. The Managing Director, Koshi Command Area Development Agency, Saharsa 5. The Secretary, Koshi Command Area Development Agency, Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 22-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2008 to the extent that it declines to grant regularization from the date that his juniors have been regularized and pay him the arrears of salary also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1843/88 disposed on 31.3.1992 noticed how the respondents had acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by regularizing his juniors from dates prior to him. The petitioner was regularized on 24.6.1993 while Patna High Court CWJC No.11894 of 2010 (2) dt.22-11-2011 2 his juniors had been regularized in 1979, 1980 and 1982. The matter was kept pending by the respondents unreasonably till they have finally rejected the claim on 9.8.2008. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order. It is true that this Court on 31.3.1992 returned a finding of discrimination in regularization. If the petitioner was regularized with effect from 24.6.1993 and was aggrieved by the date, it was for him to pursue matters appropriately with diligence. The petitioner claims to have represented first on 23.10.2002, then in September, 2006 followed by January, 2007. A bald statement has been made in paragraph-12 that he had submitted several representations without any date or supported by any documentary evidence when the pleadings with regard to the first representation alone is specific. The Court therefore holds that the petitioner never represented on his own showing after 2002 in respect of an order passed in 1993. The law stands settled that mere filing of representations is not sufficient justification for delay especially in service matters. The petitioner allowed events to pass without pursuing any legal remedies and now stakes a claim for arrears of salary for a period that he has not Patna High Court CWJC No.11894 of 2010 (2) dt.22-11-2011 3 worked based on the premise that the respondents have disposed his representation recently on 9.8.2008. Even otherwise, from 24.6.1993 till 9.8.2008 several developments may have taken place in the service arena of the petitioner. Others have marched ahead in seniority by substantive promotions and A.C.P./time bound promotion. At this stage to direct any retrospective regularization, an anachronism in itself, shall be creating severe turbulence in service which will only generate further litigation at the behest of those who will now get affected if any orders are passed in the present case. Delay on part of the petitioner in having moved for legal redress belatedly nearly 15 years after the date of regularization does not stand condoned by any action of the respondents in rejecting his representation recently on 9.8.2008. The original delay remains unexplained. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)