IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14459 of 2005 Amar Singh Negi son of Sri Ambir Sain Negi, resident of village and post office Spillo, p.s. Pooh, district Kinnur, Himachal Pradesh at present posted as Commandant 21 Battalion, CRPF, Patna. …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, Kendriya Karyalaya Parishad, Lodi Road, New Delhi 3. The Addl. Director General of Police (personnel) CRPF Kendriya Karyalaya Parishad, Lodi Road, New Delhi 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), office of the Director General CRPF, kendriya karyalaya Parisad Lodi Road, New Delhi 5. The Inspector General of Police CRPF, Bihar Sector, Bailey Road, Sheikhpura, Patna 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police CRPF, Bailey Road, Jagdeopath, Patna …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha & :Mr. Mritunjay Kumar For the UOI :Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, CGC ----------- 04. 24.11.2011 Heard Mr. Sinha in support of the application and Mr. Pandey on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner filed the present proceeding on 24.11.2005 questioning the sustainability of the order dated 16.09.2003 (Annexure-10) whereby his representation for grant of promotion with effect from 23.4.2003 to the rank/post of Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short CRPF’) was considered and rejected. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. A show cause notice dated 4.2.2003 was issued to the petitioner in regard to gross lapses committed by him on 30.01.2003 when VVIPs security duty was blatantly breached and a motorcyclist intruded onto the route assigned for movement of the VVIPs. The DPC met on 21.3.2003 and did not recommend him for promotion. Aggrieved thereby, he filed 2 representation which was considered and rejected by a communication dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure-10). It appears that on persuasion of the petitioner, his case was subsequently taken up for consideration by the DPC held on 4.6.2004 wherein he was found fit and suitable for promotion and accordingly was promoted. Nearly more than one year thereafter the present application has been filed raising a grievance that in all fairness he was required to be considered and promoted with effect from the date when juniors to him were promoted. It has also been contended that respondents have given the petitioner a differential treatment in the matter of consideration of his case for promotion when the DPC met for the first time on 23.4.2003 on the ground that displeasure was noted against him in relation to an occurrence that had taken place on 30.01.2003. Relevant pleadings in this regard have been made in paragraph nos. 15 and 16. The respondents have opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of the Court to averments made in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit in order to contend that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of aforesaid Ajay Singh who was then serving as the Assistant Commandant. It is further contended that it would manifest from the pleadings on record that petitioner had been indolent and negligent in approaching this Court immediately after the rejection of his representation dated 16.9.2003 inasmuch as after grant of his 3 due promotion on 4.6.2004 he again waited for more than a year in knocking the doors of this Court for invocation of its extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. It has been contended that filing of the representation in such matter would not condone or explain the delay. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner was considered on his representation and was rejected by order dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure-10). A cause of action had already accrued for approaching this court for redressal of the grievance. The DPC again met on 4.6.2004 and having found the petitioner fit and suitable recommended for his promotion for the post of Commandant and accordingly he was promoted. The petitioner thereafter again waited for more than one and a half years in approaching the Court. In such matter where a parallel right is created in favour of one or the other employees of the respondents, such delay would definitely be fatal. That apart, on going through the pleadings and the submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner acquiesced in the order and remained satisfied with the subsequent consideration and grant of promotion. On this ground alone, this Court is satisfied that no case for invocation of its extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant the application has been made out. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )