IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.427 of 2010 Mr. Ramchandra Prasad Singh Son of Late Doman Pd. Singh. Retired Assistant Teacher, Madhya Vidyalaya, Kalisthan, Patna City, Anchal-Malsalami, District-Patna. ….Writ petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Patna Pramandal, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate, Patna Collectorate, Patna. 7. The Finance Department, Bihar, Patna through Finance Commissioner, Old Secretariat, Patna. 8. The Headmaster, Madhya Vidyalaya, Kali Sthan, Patna City, Patna. ….. Respondents- Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Ram Padarath Singh, Advocate. ----- 02. 10.03.2010 I.A.No.2285 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal. Before adverting to the issue of notice on the question of delay, we thought it apposite to hear the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of merits. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned - 2 - Single Judge, it is perceptible he has declined to grant the relief as prayed for on the foundation that the second time bound promotion that was extended to the appellant with effect from 01.04.1984 on the basis of resolution dated 30th December, 1981 was withdrawn on 18.06.1991. Because of delay and laches, as is evident, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant the relief. In our considered opinion, the reliefs sought are hit by doctrine of delay and laches. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there could not have been deduction from the gratuity. On a scrutiny of the writ petition, the relief clause and the order passed by the learned Single Judge, there is no iota of any assertion that there has been any deduction from the gratuity. Only one interlocutory application was filed before the writ court pleading, inter alia, that there has been some deduction from the gratuity. That, in our considered opinion, would be the different cause of action. It is open to the appellant to agitate the said grievance before the appropriate court of law. As far as the present lis is concerned, it has to be foreclosed on the ground of laches and, accordingly, we - 3 - reject the application for condonation of delay and as a natural corollary, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. Sunil (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)