IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3078 of 2004 Lal Chand Ram, son of Sheo Balak Ram, Resident of Village Biswambharpur, P.O. Mansagar, P.S. Chauri, District Bhojpur. At present Headmaster, Middle School, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanpur, District Bhojpur. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur at Ara. 4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. -------- Respondents ----------- 4 8.11.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also taking into account that the petitioner virtually for claiming the following relief:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ or writs or direction to the respondents commanding them to give B.A. trained scale to the petitioner with effect from 7.8.1975 to 25.10.1998 and accordingly to correct the pay scale as well as to give consequential arrears with reasonable compound interest.” is trying to unsettle an event of the year 1975, inasmuch as, his services were taken over only as an Assistant Teacher in the Matric Trained Scale of Pay by specific Government order dated 7.3.1975, this Court is not in a position to consider the 2 grievance of the petitioner for grant of B.A. Trained Scale of Pay from 7.3.1975. There is no explanation whatsoever for a delay of almost thirty years in moving this Court against a cause of action which the petitioner had in the year 1975 when his services were not taken over by the State Government in the B.A. Trained Scale of Pay despite he being both Graduate and Trained on 7.3.1975. In fact, this aspect of the matter has been summed up by the respondents in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit reading as follows:- “8. That the services of the petitioner was taken over as an Assistant Teacher in Matric trained scale because prior to nationalization of his school he was an assistant Teacher. After nationalization when the services of the petitioner was taken over any promotion was possible to the petitioner when he comes in seniority in gradation list and as per vacancy available. It is proper to mention here that the petitioner has not given any evidence which shows that his juniors has got promotion before the petitioner. As per available records no discrimination was made with the petitioner.” 3 From the writ petition, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner did not named any person junior to him to have been given such promotion and, therefore, this Court would also find no merit in this writ application. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)