IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18538 of 2009 1. HARI HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BABU KAMTA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL- GOPLA MATTH, P.O. BHAGWANPUR, P.S. GOPALGANJ, DISTT. GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER SARAN, CHAPRA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR CHAPRA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER SONEPUR, CHAPRA ----------- 2. 07.04.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner successfully obtained orders in an adjudication in Service Appeal No. 26 of 1983-84 from the Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra on 8.11.1985 directing him to be absorbed in the Assistant cadre and given the benefits of seniority from the date of his appointment to the post of Karmchari. The office of the Commissioner on 27.6.2001 wrote to the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra that it was unfortunate that the quasi judicial order of the Commissioner was not being complied with. Papers were then forwarded for compliance by the District Magistrate on 8.3.2002. Learned Counsel submits that the matters remained pending at this stage when he has superannuated on 28.2.2001 also leading to loss of salary in the scale of Assistant. Counsel for the State takes the objection of belated claims. The rule of delay applicable to the writ jurisdiction is not a statutory rule but a matter of discretion to be exercised in accordance with law. One of the guiding principles for exercise of this discretion is whether entertaining a writ application alleged 2 to be barred by delay would interfere with any third party rights which may have accrued in the meantime on account of lack of vigilance on the part of a litigant. The present case does not fall in that category. Had the petitioner not obtained an adjudicatory order from the Commissioner of the Division which his subordinate, the District Magistrate, was refusing to comply the matters may have been entirely different. What the respondents essentially seek to do is to gain advantage of their own administrative indiscipline to now urge that whatever may be their fault the petitioner was not vigilant in pointing out their fault and therefore he was entitled to no relief. No third party rights have been created and the question is of only grant of seniority, proper pay and revision of the pay only. Let these matters be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders passed with regard to the petitioner within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them. If the respondents propose to deny relief to the petitioner on grounds of delay as no other ground on merit appears tobe available to them in view of the order in the service appeal having attained finality, the respondents are directed simultaneously by very same order to initiate an appropriate disciplinary action including suspension and/or departmental proceedings against those who flouted the order of the 3 Commissioner and continued to flout the same till superannuation of the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)