IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3485 of 2009 Ram Krishna Mahto & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3. 15.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to have superannuated on 31.7.2000 from the post of Live Stock Inspector. Some others so promoted after superannuation on 1.6.2001 came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12858 of 2002 with a monetary claim for the promotional post with retrospective effect, contending that the delayed promotion was not their fault. The application was allowed. The petitioners then filed C.W.J.C. No. 4978 of 2005 for a direction to consider them also for promotion to the post of Assistant Technical Officer on the ground that the juniors had been promoted on 1.6.2001. The petitioners have then been promoted to the post of Assistant Technical Officer by order dated 22.9.2008 with effect from 18.8.1992 and 16.8.1995 in so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned. Relying on the order in C.W.J.C. No. 12858 of 2002, the submission is that they are also entitled 2 to similar relief by grant of full monetary benefits for the promotional post from the date of promotion as delayed promotion was not attributable to them in any manner. Seeking parity in treatment reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision reported in 1990 BBCJ 279 (Md. Nazimuddin & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) at Paragraph-24. The petitioners superannuated on 31.7.2000. There is no statement or explanation why they did not raise their issue for promotion while in service for such long years. In 2001 their juniors were promoted as alleged. Yet they kept quiet for another four long years before filing a writ petition. It was for the petitioners to obtain complete orders for themselves in C.W.J.C. No. 4978 of 2005 by laying out a claim for consequential benefits in the event that their claim for promotion found favour. No litigant, including the State, can be vexed on the same issue time and again on the only ground that the litigant/ claimant had become wiser subsequently. Any such claim therefore gets barred by the principles of constructive res judicate. The reliance on the case of Md. Nazimuddin (supra) is completely misconceived, and 3 has no application to the facts of the present case. The relief on parity therein was claimed in a writ petition filed the same year. Those who came to this Court in the year 2002 after their promotion in 2001 cannot be put at par with those who did not pursue claims for promotion for long years and even after others were granted promotion. There has to be distinction between those who moved the Courts in time and are vigilant for the protection and enforcement of their rights as distinct from those who are indolent and not vigilant and seek relief on parity belatedly. This issue has been considered in (2010) 8 SCC 467 (Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport) at Paragraph-30 as follows:- “30. If some person has taken a relief from the court by filing a writ petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, the petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof resorting to legal proceedings belatedly. They cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the petitioner therein filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper 4 explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches. 31. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana observing as under: “18. … Suffice it to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from Virpal Chauhan and Ajit Singh34 ratios. … desperate attempts of the appellants to redo the seniority had by them in various cadres … are not amenable to judicial review at this belated stage. The High Court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay as well.” 32. In Rup Diamonds v. Union of India35, this Court considered a case where the petitioner wanted to get relief on the basis of the judgment of this Court wherein a particular law had been declared ultra vires. The Court rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches observing as under: (SCC p. 360, para 8) “8. … there is one more ground which basically sets the present case apart. Petitioners are reagitating claims which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided.” The financial implication for the State, on any order for payment from 1992/1995 that the Court may pass today is a matter which the Court must not ignore. While the rights of the citizens are 5 important, the obligations and financial burden that shall ensue upon the State by any such direction are of equal relevance. In (2006) 5 SCC 65 (State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj ) it has been held at Paragaph -18 as follows:- “8. …………..In other words, the State Government declined to pay the arrears from 1-1-1986 on the ground of financial consideration, which, undoubtedly, is a very material consideration for any administration. In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal4 this Court had occasion to consider the very same issue. After referring to a number of other authorities, it was held that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. Thus, refusal to make payments of arrears from 1-1- 1986 to 28-2-1989 on the ground of financial burden cannot be held to be an arbitrary ground or irrational consideration. Hence, the argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution must fail.” Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly acknowledged that in pursuance of the promotion having been granted as Assistant Technical Officer their pensionary and other benefits have already been revised. The petitioners must consider themselves fortunate even for that relief and should rest content 6 with the same. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)