IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3745 of 2009 Chandra Shekhar Thakur . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. ---------- 2. 18.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to have retired from the post of Head Clerk on 31.1.1994. While in service he was granted first and second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1986 respectively by separate orders passed on 18.6.1988 and 22.1.1990 respectively. Subsequently, both these promotions came to be cancelled on 10.9.1992. He never questioned the same in any proceedings till superannuation. Subsequently by an order dated 22.9.1998 the respondents have granted him first time bound promotion from 28.11.1986. The order was communicated to the petitioner also. He filed C.W.J.C. No. 5757 of 1998 which was disposed on 17.5.1999 seeking relief with regard to stoppage of provisional pension. The order of the Court reflects that the respondents had brought on record that the 2 petitioner had been granted first time bound promotion (on 22.9.1998) but his pay scale had not been fixed causing delay in finalization of his pension. Therefore the petitioner was fully aware of the order dated 22.9.1998 but did not make any grievance of it before the Court. He subsequently filed C.W.J.C. No. 10571 of 1999 after the pension payment order was issued and his scale reduced. The Court granted him the liberty to pursue matters with regard to the reduction of the amount in the pension payment order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the later writ petition liberty was granted to challenge the quantum of the pension in accordance with law. The shifting of the date of the first time bound promotion being contrary to the law, it naturally affects the amount of payment allowed. The petitioner is stated to have fallen ill as mentioned in Paragraph-38 of the writ application and was therefore unable to pursue matters till he filed the present writ application in March, 2009. The Court is satisfied that the writ application suffers from gross unexplained delay. The petitioner has a lot to answer for his own 3 conduct with regard to the principles of constructive res-judicata. His time bound promotions were cancelled on 10.9.1992. No proceedings were instituted while in service. Mere filing of representations is no defence. He was granted first time bound promotion on 22.9.1998. He was fully aware of the same as far back as 17.5.1999 when the first writ petition filed by him came to be disposed. Still the petitioner did not challenge the same. He could well have challenged it in that very writ application itself. The liberty granted in the second writ application shall not reopen matters which stood concluded on the disposal of the previous writ application on 17.5.1999. The explanation given in Paragraph-38 of the writ petition with regard to the delay attributable to his illness arises from the order of the Court in the second writ petition dated 1.5.2005. The finding of the Court is that the petitioner has no explanation to offer with regard his conduct in view of the order in the earlier writ petition. In 2010(8) SCC 701 (Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij & Anr.), the Supreme Court at Paragraph-37 has strongly 4 deprecated entertaining by the Court of a claim for time bound promotion eight years later ignoring the aspect of delay. The present writ petition filed in the year 2009 seeks to question an order of granting time bound promotion more than 10 years ago. “37. Yet, another question that draws our attention is with regard to delay and laches. In fact, Respondent 1's petition deserved to be dismissed only on that ground but surprisingly the High Court overlooked that aspect of the matter and dealt with it in a rather casual and cursory manner. The appellant had categorically raised the ground of delay of over eight years in approaching the High Court for grant of the said relief. But the High Court has simply brushed it aside and condoned such an inordinate, long and unexplained delay in a casual manner. Since, we have decided the matter on merits, thus it is not proper to make avoidable observations, except to say that the approach of the High Court was neither proper nor legal.” The Court is not persuaded to entertain this stale and belated application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)