IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6994 of 2004 DR.M.L.BANARJEE Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. ----------- 7 18.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. On an interpretation given to Regulation 16(3) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1971 by Hon’ble calcutta High Court in the writ application of Pankaj Kumar Sarkar, the petitioner has now decided to file the present writ application in the year, 2004 seeking a direction upon the respondents to refix his seniority on the post of Chief Labour Inspector since 1972 which according to him was the year of vacancy for such appointment. Petitioner has pleaded discrimination in the matter in grant of such seniority. A few facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Labour Inspector by virtue of a decision taken in the year, 1972 and he came to join the post of Labour Inspector on 4.1.1973. Subsequently he had been given promotion on the post of Chief Labour Inspector in the year, 1977. Petitioner has also earned subsequent promotions and at present he is holding the post of Joint Manager under the Food Corporation of India. Petitioner submits that after the year, 1995 based on All India Seniority List and may be the decision of the Calcutta High Court he approached the authority in the year, 1995 itself but 2 since nothing much came to be done he decided to file the present writ application in the year, 2004. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and have taken a preliminary objection that the present writ application is hopelessly barred by latches and delay on the part of the petitioner. Not only this after accepting the settled position for more than 32 years now he wants to reagitate the issue to unsettle the settled matter after many a decades or years. They also contend that there is no discrimination so far as the petitioner is concerned because no similarly situated person like the petitioner has been given a benefit of the kind which he is seeking today. No doubt certain dispute travelled to Calcutta High Court on the applicability of Regulation 16(3) and based on a decision rendered therein certain persons who were petitioners in the said case got benefit and relief in the said writ application but in absence of cogent explanation this Court in the year, 2008 is not enthused to compel the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioner from the year, 1972. The Court is of the opinion that reopening of a dead issue in the year, 2008 and that too with regard to seniority from the year, 1972 will not only open a pandora’s box but would also amount to condoning latches of the petitioner when he should have asserted his right even according to him at least way back, 1995 when the so called seniority list was issued or circulated by 3 the respondents. The Court is not inclined to entertain a stale matter like this at this stage. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)