IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1670 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 13213 of 2004 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 9175 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1670 of 2010 ==================================================== Mahanand Mishra son of Late Ram Padarath Mishra, resident of Village- Thalwara, P.O.-Laheriasarai, P.S. Ashok Paper Mills, District-Darbhanga. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Central Selection Board through its Chairman, D.I.G. Special Branch, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur. 5. The Inspector General of Police (Transport), Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Shiv Narayan Jha, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, A.C. to SC-1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 26.10.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 9175 of 2010:- This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 7 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the - 2 - case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1670 of 2010:- This appeal preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 6th August 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 13213 of 2004. The appellant-writ petitioner is a retired Jamadar (Mechanic/Motor Vehicle). On reaching the age of superannuation the appellant retired from service on 30th June 2001. More than three years after his retirement, on 13th October 2004 he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of his grievances accumulated over a period of 27 years of service. The first of his grievances is in respect of his notional promotion as Driver Hawildar with effect from 1st April 1974. The appellant has prayed that his service from 1st April 1975 to 12th December 1985 be treated as Driver Hawildar and not as Constable and for consequential relief in respect of seniority. His next grievance is in respect of grant of grade of Jamadar (Mechanic/Motor Vehicle) since 1992 and for consequential reliefs till he retired from service on 30th June 2001. The third grievance is in respect of the increments withheld on account of his not passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and for grant of revised pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs.5000- - 3 - 8100. It may be noted that no specific relief has been prayed for release of the increments nor for revision of retrial benefits. The claims raised by the appellant in the year 2004; more than three years after the date of retirement and decades after the date of cause of action have been rejected by the learned single Judge as stale and belated. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Prem Kumar Jha appears for the appellant. He has submitted that the claim related to the years 1974 to 1985 may be a stale claim but the other claims could not have been rejected being stale or belated. He has submitted that withholding of increments and ensuing monetary loss were a continuous wrong and could have been challenged at any time. He has also submitted that not extending the benefit of pay revision with effect from 1st April 1997 was also a continuous wrong and could have been agitated at any time. We are unable to agree with Mr. Jha. First we note that there are no clear-cut pleadings in respect of withholding of increments or non-grant of benefit of pay revision with effect from 1st April 1997 nor has the appellant claimed the precise reliefs. As recorded hereinabove the claims raised by the appellants were indeed stale and belated and required to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence. The inordinate delay in approaching the Court has not been explained. None of the grievances raised by the appellant - 4 - could have been entertained after an inordinate and unexplained delay. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)