IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1039 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9960 of 2006 With Interlocutory Application No. 4747 of 2011 ====================================================== Naresh Prasad Sinha, Son of Late Bidhya Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Harnichak, P.S.-Phulwarisharif, P.O.-Anishabad, District-Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Commissioner –cum-Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. Additional Secretary, Joint Cadre, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 5. Deputy Secretary, Joint Cadre, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar Mr. Shew Kumar Prabhakar, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tripurari Nath Ambastha, AC to SC 15. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 27-07-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4747 of 2011: This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of one year and ninety nine days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. It is the claim of the appellant that the impugned order was made in absence of the learned advocate. The appellant was not aware of the impugned order dated 11th January 2010 till 22nd April 2011. In view of the above facts, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Patna High Court LPA No.1039 of 2011 (3) dt.27-07-2011 2 Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1039 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 11th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 9960 of 2006. The appellant is a retired Section Officer employed in the Bihar State Secretariat. On reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30th June 1998. Feeling aggrieved by promotions granted to his juniors under Government Notification dated 3rd September 2004 the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 9960 of 2006 to claim promotion with effect from 1997, the date he became eligible for promotion as Under Secretary to the State Government. The learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Dinu Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned single Judge without affording opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. He has next submitted that the vacancy was available since 1996. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to promotion. Though his juniors have been promoted under the Government Notification dated 3rd September 2004, the appellant has been deprived of such promotion. The grievance expressed by the appellant is wholly misconceived. The learned single Judge has rightly held that as the appellant was not superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Under Secretary, he cannot have a legitimate grievance. The claim for promotion based on promotions granted to the juniors as late as in the year 2004 more than six Patna High Court LPA No.1039 of 2011 (3) dt.27-07-2011 3 years after the retirement of the appellant is incomprehensible. Merely because the vacancy did exist, the appellant did not get right to promotion as a matter of course. Although he could have claimed a right to be considered for promotion, for assertion of such right the appellant could not have waited till his retirement from service and for another eight years. The claim made by the appellant is totally devoid of merit. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)