IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.941 of 2008 ----- 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative and Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Respondents….. Appellants Versus 1. Nawal Kishore Prasad, Son of Late Harihari Mahto, resident of Mohalla-Gabhtal, P/S-Danapur, District-Patna. 2. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary Personal Administrative & Reforms Department. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Respondents/ Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Hari Shankar Roy, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General -II For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 02nd December, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of three hundred forty eight days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.7050/2008) has been made. We considered the application thoughtfully and, in our view, long delay of three hundred forty eight days is not sufficiently explained. 2. It will be seen that the impugned order came to be passed on 02nd November, 2007. The certified copy of the order was received on 20th November, 2007. On 03rd December, 2007, file was - 2 - placed with noting of the Section Officer before the Deputy Secretary. After lapse of more than one and half months, i.e. on 29th January, 2008, the Letters Patent Appeal was proposed to be filed and the matter was sent to Law Department on 02nd February, 2008 and then sent to the Advocate General. It is stated that the Advocate General opined to file application seeking review of the order dated 02.11.2007 and accordingly review application (MJC) came to be filed on 28th April, 2008. It is, thus, seen that more than five months were taken in filing review application. As to on what date opinion was given by the Advocate General to file review application is not stated. But surely it was before 18.02.2008 as the file was received by the administrative department with the opinion of Advocate General on that date. After the opinion was received from the Advocate General for filing review application, there is no explanation as to why did it take more than two months in filing review application. The review application was dismissed on 13th August, 2008. Even after dismissal of the review application, about three months have been taken in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The explanation is that the file moved from the concerned department to the law department and the Advocate General again. 3. We are afraid, if the file moves from one table to the other or from one office to other without sense of urgency, and at its own leisure to pleasure, time taken in movement of file cannot be held to be constituting sufficient cause. The delay is not of few days. It is - 3 - almost of one year and we find that the matter has been dealt with casualness and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and we order, accordingly. 4. Even if for the arguments sake, we assume that the cause for condonation of delay is made out and we condone the delay then, in our considered view, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The Single Judge passed the order as it was brought to his notice that the writ petitioner’s date of birth has been shifted to 30th May, 1998. Consequently the Single Judge ordered that all consequential benefits be given to the writ petitioner as the date of promotion has been shifted to 30th May, 1998. 5. The counsel for the appellants sought to contend that Annexure-10 upon which the writ petitioner placed reliance was a clerical error and it cannot be said that the date of promotion has been shifted. 6. We are afraid, the contention is wholly misconceived. There is nothing on record to assume that the order shifting the date of promotion with effect from 30th May, 1998 was due to some clerical error. 7. Letters Patent Appeal, accordingly, has no merit, even otherwise. It is dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A.No.7050/2008 as well. 8. Since the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed, the application for interim relief does not survive. Consequently, - 4 - I.A.No.7051/2008 also stands rejected. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil