IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1627 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15167 of 2011 ====================================================== Ramadhar Singh, S/o Late Sriram Singh, R/o Vill.+P.O.- South Ekauna, P.S.- Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police), Patna, Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The I.G. of Police (Establishment), Bihar, Patna 4. The D.I.G. of Police, Magadh Zone, Gaya 5. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada, Bihar 6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 15-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 9th September 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 15167 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The writ petitioner is a retired Civil Zamadar. He retired on 30th June 2002. In the petition filed in 2011, the writ petitioner claimed increments in the cadre of Civil Zamadar since 1995. It appears that the increments of the petitioner were withheld as the petitioner failed to pass Hindi noting and drafting Patna High Court LPA No.1627 of 2011 (2) dt.15-11-2011 2 / 2 2 examination. He never raised dispute in respect of withholding of the increments till he retired and years there after. In view of the judgment of this Court dated 10th May 2005 passed in CWJC No. 12638 of 1999 holding that the Civil Zamadars were not required to pass Hindi noting and drafting examination, the appellant filed the above writ petition in 2011. The claim made by the appellant is evidently a stale claim. The gross delay in raising the claim has not been explained. The learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant on the grounds of delay and laches. We agree with the learned single Judge. The claim deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)