IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8166 of 2003 DINA NATH SINGH, son of late Bageshwar Singh, Resident of village Vaibhav Vihar Rupaspur, P.S. Danapur, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner cum Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Patna 4. The Under Secretary (Irrigation Department), Sinchai Bhawan, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 3. 4.1.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “This is an application for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 31.3.1983 as well as its consequential benefits instead of his promotion since 1.9.1993. Since as per the final seniority list published by the respondent no.3 vide Order no.11/Astha-4-204/90-88 Patna dated 9.1.1991 the petitioner’s position is at serial no. 78 of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers whereas Sri Parmanand Singh, Sri Bholan Choudhary and Sri Gokul Prasad Biswas whose name find place at 2 serial no. 80, 82 and 83 respectively in the said seniority list have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 31.3.83, 31.3.83 and 21.6.84 respectively and have been given all the consequential benefits.” Mr. Udit Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that when the seniority of the petitioner was ultimately restored in the year 1991 consequent to the directions of this Court the petitioner also became entitled for his promotion from the date his juniors were given such promotion. To that extent Mr. Singh relies on the order of promotion dated 9.1.1991 wherein some of his juniors are said to have been promoted with effect from 31.1.1983 and 21.8.1983. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s date of promotion also should be shifted back to 31.1.1983 with all financial benefit. Counsel for the State would submit that the date of promotion of the petitioner has been notified by giving him retrospective promotion with effect from the 3 date he was given current charge on the post of Assistant Engineer. As with regard to the claim of the earlier period counsel for the State would submit that at that point of time the seniority of the petitioner was admittedly below to Parmanand Singh, Bhola Choudhary and Gokul Prasad Biswas and if by efflux of time the three persons became junior to the petitioner on account of revision of seniority list, that by itself will not give a right to the petitioner to claim his retrospective promotion. In the opinion of this Court the fact that the petitioner claimed to be senior to Parmanand Singh, Bhola Choudhary and Gokul Prasad Biswas even in the year 1983 and as such, if he was aggrieved on account of their promotion he had to move the Court at appropriate time in the year 1983-84. That having been not done by him primarily on the ground that in the year 1983-84 he ranked junior to Parmanand Singh, Bhola Choudhary and Gokul Prasad Biswas, the subsequent event of revision of seniority list could not have given him the benefit of also dating back his promotion from the date 4 of promotion of his alleged aforesaid juniors who in fact were senior to him in the earlier gradation list. That apart the respondents have very fairly given promotion to the petitioner at least from the date he was assigned the current charge of the post of Assistant Engineer. Such current charge arrangement having been made in terms of the revised seniority list, the petitioner’s grievance if at all again could have been looked into had he filed this writ application immediately after his order of promotion dated 8.5.1997. The petitioner, however, has filed this writ application on 13.8.2003 and therefore, the unexplained delay and laches on his part as also the aforementioned facts relating to revision of seniority list would not now entitle the petitioner to claim his promotion with retrospective date. The petitioner has already retired from the service on 31st January, 2001 and therefore, now reopening the whole thing may also entail the consequence of reversion of his alleged juniors. The alleged juniors, 5 however, are not party to this writ petition and therefore, this Court in their absence cannot make any pronouncement affecting their rights. For all these reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/