IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12793 of 2003 Gopal Prasad, son of late Janki Prasad, resident of Village Dillo Bighaha, P.O. Barnausa, Via: Rajgir, District Nalanda. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, at Biharsharif. 6. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 11.10.2010 Having heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner cannot be given the following relief, as prayed in this writ application:- “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondent authorities to grant second time bound promotion to the petitioner in the light of recommendation made by Fourth Pay Revision Commission. (ii) For issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to take a positive decision upon the representation filed by the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, 2 commanding and directing the respondent authorities to make payment with statutory interest after granting second time bound promotion to the petitioner.” for the following reasons:- (i) The time bound promotion, which the petitioner is claiming with effect from 1.4.1981, as a matter of fact, would allow him to raise a cause of action of some twenty-two years back, inasmuch as, this writ application was filed on 19.11.2003 after the petitioner had retired from service on 1.4.1983. Thus, the unexplained delay of twenty-two years in filing this writ application and that too after the retirement of the petitioner for claiming second time bound promotion, is itself good enough to dismiss this writ application. (ii) Additionally, this Court would find that even if the petitioner’s date of appointment was 29.6.1950, his first time bound promotion, in view of Resolution of the Government in terms of the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee vide resolution dated 30.12.1981, was admissible only with effect from 1.4.1981. The second time bound 3 promotion in view of the aforesaid decision of the State Government could have been given to the petitioner at the earliest with effect from 1.4.1985. Once the petitioner was given the first time bound promotion during the period he was in service, he could have remained contented with it, inasmuch as, when he had retired and could not continue in service after June, 1983, he could have been given the benefit of second time bound promotion, which had become due only w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Thus, both on merit as also on account of delay, this writ application has to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)