Letters Patent Appeal No.180 OF 2001 (Against the judgment and order passed in CWJC NO. 836 of 2001 on 19.01.2001.) CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD SINHA……………… (Appellant) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ……………… (Respondents) -------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhayay, Adv. For the Patna Municipal Corporation: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kr. Singh,Adv. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & C. M. Prasad, J.J. In this appeal, appellant, who was an employee of Patna Municipal Corporation, retired from service in the year 1991. According to the appellant he remained in the same post all through while serving the Corporation. In 1996 appellant filed a writ petition seeking time bound promotion. Writ petition was disposed of by directing the Corporation to consider his case for grant of time bound promotion. In terms thereof, the claim of the appellant for time bound promotion was considered by the Administrator, who held that the Corporation has not granted time bound promotion to anyone and the decision of the Government for grant of time bound promotion has - 2 - not been made applicable to the Corporation and accordingly the claim of the appellant for time bound promotion is not acceptable. This decision of the Corporation was assailed by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal only on the ground of delay and laches. We feel, when the claim of the appellant for consideration of his case for grant of time bound promotion was directed to be considered on 28th January, 1998, i.e. the date when the first writ petition was disposed of, and when in terms of such direction ultimately the final decision on the claim of the appellant for time bound promotion was taken on 13th June, 2000, there was no such delay on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court in 2001 seeking to challenge the reasons to reject the claim of the appellant. However, the fact remains that the appellant has not been able to establish that in fact the Corporation has accorded time bound promotion to any of its employees, although an assertion to that effect had been made in the writ petition. When the Corporation, by the order impugned in the writ petition, held out in no uncertain terms that the - 3 - Patna High Court, 22nd July,2008, Ravi/N.A.F.R. Corporation has not granted time bound promotion to anyone of its employees, a mere assertion contrary thereto could not serve the purpose, the appellant was required to bring evidence on record to show that the assertions in the order impugned are untrue and incorrect. In such view of the matters, there is no scope for interference with the impugned order. The appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)