IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8721 of 2010 1. Lakhan Choudhary S/O Late Bhagwat Choudhary R/O Vill Ganjala Ward No. 10, Near, Golden Public School, Saharsa Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State Of Jharkhand 3. Joint Registrar (Head Quarters) Co-Operative Societies Bihar, Patna 4. Joint Secretary To Govt. Co-Operative Department Bihar, Patna 5. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Bihar, Patna 6. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Sahebganj, Jharkhand ---------------------------------- 3. 14.10.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. I.A. No. 4250 of 2011 has been filed after serving copy on the Counsel for the State on 28.6.2011 for substituting the original petitioner by his legal heirs as mentioned in para 1 of the same after the former’s demise during pendency of the writ application on 30.4.2011. Considering the nature of the claims made in the writ application and that it may have financial implications for the family of the deceased the I.A. application is allowed. The original writ petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.11.1995 from the post of Assistant Secretary, Cooperative Societies at Sahebganj. The next promotional post in the cadre is Assistant Registrar. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits from the communication dated 23.11.2007 that the respondents were still in the process of compiling information of approximately 30 retired officers for the purpose of promotion. It is submitted that the respondents are unnecessarily prolonging the process of consideration on account of internal deficiencies in compiling the necessary service information of the concerned. Prima-facie the Court is satisfied that if the original petitioner superannuated on 31.11.1995, and as it appears from the pleadings in the writ petition, took no legal steps during his service tenure to enforce his right to be considered for promotion. The writ petition may have been barred by gross delay. But if what the petitioner contends is correct and the respondents, as it appears from their letters dated 23.11.2007 and 22.5.2009, are still in the process of considering retrospective promotion to persons like the petitioner quite naturally the respondents are required to act expeditiously as they appear to have already denied timely consideration to the petitioner. Let such consideration be done by the respondents within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before respondent no. 5. Needless to state that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim necessary consequential order shall be issued simultaneously without awaiting further litigation. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)