IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2249 of 2004 CHHOTEYLAL PASWAN, son of late Garib Das, resident of Mohalla Bari Khanjarpur, P.S. Kotwali (Barari) Town, District – Bhagalpur ______ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. ______ Respondent ----------- 04. 12.7.2010 Petitioner wants benefit of time bound promotion in terms of the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 30.12.1981. This resolution was brought into effect on the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee to cover such employees who had no avenues of promotion from the post. The first time bound promotion used to accrue after ten years and the second time bound promotion after 25 years. The effect of promotion was not to raise the position and responsibility but only the pay-scale or the salary, which the employee was drawing. This time bound promotion was done away with after 5th Pay Revision was introduced some time in the year 1996, but still the Government employees such as the present petitioner is claiming benefit of such a circular in the present writ application which came to be filed in the year 2004. This is another issue that the writ is now being heard in the year 2010. On a preliminary objection by this Court on the question of delay or stale claim being brought by the petitioner, he submits that similarly situated employees have been given benefit of time bound promotion in light of directions contained in annexure-3. Since the petitioner was not given that benefit, he decided to approach the Court. Another reason is that the union leaders let him down who did 2 not include his name in the writ application filed earlier by a set of employees in the year 1993. Whatever be the explanation, the fact stands that the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2004 for claim of promotion which ought to accrue to him in the year 1983. Strictly speaking, rule of limitation would not apply to writ petitions but as a public policy delayed applications of such kind are not to be encouraged or entertained as has been so held on many a occasions by this Court, including the apex Court. On this ground alone, the writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)