IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9344 of 2011 Gopal Dutt Shukla, son of Late, Ram Nath Shukla, R/o vill. Bagora, P.S. Daraunda, Dist. Siwan. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The Administrator Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Parivahan Bhawan Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. The Chief of the Administration, Bihar, State Road Transport Corporation Parivahan Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. The Accountant, The Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Beerchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. The Divisional Manager, Muzaffarpur Depot. B.S.R.T.C. Muzaffarpur. ---Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Pd.Singh, Advocate. For the corporation : Mr. N.K.Singh,Advocate. ----------- 02 21.06.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 13.08.2005 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent Administrator Bihar State Road Transport Corporation ( for short the ‘Corporation’) pursuant to the order of this Court passed on C.W.J.C. No. 5522 of 2004 (Annexure-2). By a proceeding dated 08.04.2005, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner permitting him to file detailed claim relating to grant of time bound promotion which, in turn, was directed to be disposed of within a stipulated period. The authorities by the impugned order disposed of the representation by a reasoned order concluding as under:- ^^ mi;qZDRk fLFkfr ds vkyksd esa oknh Jh “kqDyk ds }kjk nh x;h f}rh; dkyc) izksUufr ds osrueku 1200&1800 ds ctk; 1320&2040 ds osrueku esa izksUufr dh ekax lqlaxr ,oa fu;ekuqdwy ugha jgk gS A pwWafd fnukad 24-8-93 dks ihBklhu inkf/kdkjh vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] iVuk }kjk jsQjsUl dsl la[;k 5@89 esa ?kksf’kr iapkV ds vkyksd esa laokgd laoxZ dk la”kksf/kr osrueku 950&20&1150&25&1500 ¼iwoZ esa 480&680½ fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k A rFkk bl osrueku dk izFke dkyc)@ duh; izoj dksfV dk osrueku 975&25&1150&30&1540@& ,oa f}rh; dkyc)@ojh; izoj dksfV dk osrueku 1200&30&1800 2 fu/kkZfjr gS A bl ifjizs{; esas bUgsa izFke ,oa f}rh; dkyc) izksUufr Lohd`r fd;k x;k gS bl fLFkfr esa bUgsa ?kksf’kr iapkV ds vuqlkj 1200&30&1800 esa nh x;h izksUufr fu;ekuqdwy lgh gS A budk nkok osrueku 1320&2040 dk nkok fu;eksa ,oa ?kksf’kr iapkV ds vuq:i lgh ugha gS A ** At least on two counts, this Court would be justified in not invoking its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders. Firstly, the order was passed on 13.08.2005, whereas the present proceeding has been filed in the year 2011. Thus, there is gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. It appears, the petitioner acquiesced in the order and did not challenge the same. Secondly, the order records adequate reasons for rejection of the representation claiming second time bound promotion which have not demonstrated to be untenable in law. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to approach forum available to him in law for redressal of his grievance(s). With this observation, the application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )