IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8374 of 2010 1. Indu Bhushan Prasad S/O Late Dr. Din Dayal Prasad R/O C/O Arbind Prasad Singh, Sonbarsha Musapur Road, Opposite Registrar Campus, Kashipur, At & P.O.& P.S.Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur, Retired Assistant Engineer Department Of Water Resources , Government Of Bihar, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Water Resources Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Water Resources Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Engineer-In Chief , Department Of Water Resources Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. Chief Engineer, Department Of Water Resources Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, Ganga Pump Nahar Circle Bhagalpur 6. The Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Nahar Division Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur 7. The Accountant General Bihar , Patna 3/ 13/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer from the Water Resources Department on 31.8.1997. He is aggrieved by the orders dated 3.4.2008 and 24.4.2008 declining him exemption from passing of the departmental examination so as to be eligible for grant of time bound promotion. The latter informs him that the person granted time bound promotion with a similar name was a direct appointee on the post of Assistant Engineer unlike the petitioner who was a promotee. The latter was still in service while the petitioner had superannuated. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to demonstrate from the pleadings in the writ application why the petitioner did not take any steps for pursuing his claims while he was in service till his superannuation. Even thereafter, the writ application has been filed much belatedly in the year-2010. The Supreme Court in (2010) 8 SCC 701 (Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij) at paragraph- 37 has strenuously deprecated entertainment of the claims for time bound promotion after a lapse of eight years only in the following words:- “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.” Even if the petitioner applied for exemption from passing the departmental examination in 1990, as he claims, it is still left unanswered why he did not pursue matters in his service tenure or even his 3 superannuation for such long years. The Court finds no infirmity in the reasoning contained in the order dated 3.4.2008 that there was no occasion to consider any retrospective grant of exemption. After the petitioner superannuated on 31.8.1997, he went beyond the administrative purview of the respondents except under the Bihar Pension Rules. If the master- servant relationship stood severed, the question of considering an application for exemption from a person who was not in service quite rightly did not exist. The second ground mentioned in the order dated 24.4.2008 is a disputed question of fact. There is no assertion by the petitioner that the other person with similar name bore common parentage with that of the petitioner to support his contention that it in fact related to him only and that there was no other person with a similar name in service as alleged by the respondents. In fact, the writ petition in paragraph-17 stops short of reiterating the contents of the letter dated 24.4.2008 without disputing the correctness of the recitals contained therein. The Court finds it difficult to grant any relief. The application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)