IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10549 of 2011 Smt.Kanti Singh wife of Late Kameshwar Singh, Ex. Electrical Senior Engineer (Executive Engineer) Resident of 116, Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Patna, Dist-Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna . 2. The Chairman, Bihar Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Jharkhand Electricity, Board, through its Secretary, Ranchi. 4. General Manager cum chief Engineer, Jharkhand Electricity Board, Ranchi. 5. Joint Secretary, (Department of General Administration) Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. --Respondents. ----------- 02 05.07.2011 Heard the parties. Petitioner is widow of an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board ( for short „Board‟). Husband of the petitioner was serving the Board since 1973 in various capacities. While serving as Assistant Electrical Engineer, he died in harness on 05.10.1997. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being widow of the deceased employee had to file few proceedings in this Court for payment of post retiral dues. It is admitted at Bar that the petitioner was ultimately paid the post retiral dues in the year 2005. She again approached this Court raising a grievance with regard to promotion and/or grant of enhanced scale of pay to her deceased husband. This Court by a proceeding dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure-6) disposed of the said application. Paragraph no.5 whereof reads as under:- “5. I was inclined not to interfere in the matter as the grievances have been raised after about five years of the issue of the notification dated 28.1.1999, Annexures 4 and 5 but considering the fact that petitioner is the widow and she did not had any knowledge about the issue of those notifications, 2 I deem it expedient to permit the petitioner to approach the Board and file representation for the relief prayed for in this writ application and the representation should be considered by the authorities in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Board should pass a speaking order dealing with the submissions noted above as also taken in the representation.” A representation in the light of said order was filed which was disposed of and communicated by the impugned order dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure-8). Relevant part of the said communication are as under:- “The D.P.C. in its meeting held on 1.2.2010 observed that since there was an adverse entry in A.C.R. of Late Singh, for three consecutive years i.e. 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, while his case was put up for consideration towarding allowing him to cross the efficiency bar at that time and in view of the rules it was decided to allow him to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 5.2.86 although it was due on 5.2.1981. In the light of this the D.P.C. decided that it is not possible and proper under the rules to reconsider the case under reference and recommended that the date of time bound scale allowed to sri Singh need not be changed.” The grievance of the petitioner is that although the deceased husband of the petitioner was granted benefit of promotion/enhancement of scale w.e.f. 01.04.1994, but he was entitled to get the said promotion/enhancement of scale from a date prior to that. I have already noticed that prior to the order passed on writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6692 of 2005 (Annexure-6), the petitioner had occasion to approach this Court seeking relief(s) in respect of retiral benefits payable to the deceased employee/widow. No such issue was raised in those proceeding(s). This Court, on her previous application expressed its reservation by observing that such issue of promotion/enhancement of scale was being raised 3 belatedly but permitted the petitioner to file representation. In the light of said observation/ liberty, the matter was considered by the respondent Board and the prayer was refused for the reasons indicated therein. This Court, in view of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, as also taking into consideration the fact that the matter which has become stale does not find any merit in the application. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )