IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5821 of 2011 Narayan Prasad, son of late Manik Chand Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Andar Bairagi, P.S. Delha, District -Gaya Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police (Railway), Patna. 4. The Inspector General of Police (Administration), Patna. 5. The D. G. of Police (Railway), Shahabad Region, Dehri-on-Sone, District – Rohtas. 6. The Superintendent of Police (Railway), Katihar. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Bhabhua. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner ; M/S. M. Chatterjee & Samir Kumar Sinha. For the State : Mr. V K Singh, SC 5. ---- 02. 29.7.2011 Learned counsel representing the petitioner opens up her argument with a basic submission that petitioner is one of the most obedient constable which the Bihar Police has seen in many a years. Reason for saying so is because of the background under which the present writ application has been filed. Petitioner was appointed as a constable. The year is not important except for the fact that on 8.12.1994 he was given promotion to the post of ASI. The notification giving promotion was issued but factually the petitioner never joined the promoted post as he continued to work as a constable under the Katihar Rail Police on the spacious ground that he was not relieved to join his new promoted post. There is reflection from the writ application that an order was passed by the DG of Police on 3.11.2001 (Annexure-6) and this order states that the petitioner will get the benefit of paper promotion from the date 2 he was given promotion but the monetary benefit will accrue to him from the date of joining on the post. This order has remained in operation for the last 10 years but never assailed. Petitioner retired on 31.1.2011 and pronto writ application has been filed on 30th March, 2011, making a claim that the respondent be directed to give him arrears of difference of salary for the period petitioner was promoted till the order dated 3.11.2001 came to be passed. There are many an un-explained areas in the writ application. The only explanation which has been offered by the counsel representing the petitioner is that because of his non-relieving or because of his not being given permission to take the new responsibility, he continued to work as a constable under the respondent –SP, Rail. Not only this, in the year 1999 when he was transferred as a constable to the district of Bhabhua, he obeyed that direction as well, as he was an obedient constable under Bihar Police. Certain annexures by way of representations have been annexed with the writ to show that petitioner did lodge his claim in this regard before the respondents but since nothing was done about it, the petitioner waited patiently and on the first opportunity after retirement he decided to challenge the action of the respondents. The primary contention which emerges from above set of facts is whether petitioner could be denied his salary for 3 the period he was granted promotion till the order of DGP (Annexure-6) came into existence, reiterating the fact that the period will be treated as paper promotion and salary will be payable from the date of joining. The plea that the petitioner was a disciplined constable will not rub off on the Court as it is difficult to believe that a person promoted to a higher post will not take up the responsibility of the higher post for many a years on the ground that he was not allowed or relieved by the concerned controlling authority. There was acceptance at the bar that petitioner was facing some proceeding and was waiting for a clean chit. It was the reason it seems that petitioner did not join the promoted post and Annexure-6 had to be issued by the D.G.P. This order has remained in operation and in existence for almost 10 years now. There is no clear averment and explanation coming from the petitioner as to why he had to wait for his retirement to make a claim for salary of the post which he never occupied despite promotion order. Shifting the blame on the respondents is not going to help the case of the petitioner because obviously if the petitioner did not assert his right and come to the court at the appropriate time and allowed an order contrary to his interest to remain operative for more than 10 years, the relief which the petitioner is looking for cannot be made available now on a make believe grounds being urged now. 4 It is well settled that no person can be allowed salary for the period he has not shouldered responsibility of higher post. There nothing arbitrary about Annexure-6 as it is based on factual position. Petitioner should be more than thankful that the respondents at least maintained the seniority of the petitioner on the promoted post despite non-joining for 7 years. Writ suffers from many a laches and delay besides the absence of requisite legal principle for grant of such benefit to the petitioner . Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)