IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1384 of 2009 Satish Narayan Dhar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 04.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The twin relief claimed in this writ application is to be considered for promotion on the post of Section Officer with effect from 10.10.1996, and the second relief is to be considered for grant of ACP in the Secretariat Assistant Cadre. On the own showing of the petitioner from his pleadings he claims the relief for substantive promotion as Section Officer from 10.10.1996. The cause of action arose to him after the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 25.9.2001 and certain others were promoted on 29.12.2001 including his juniors. The petitioner remained in service till 1.11.2007 but does not appear to have pursued his relief during his service career. Even this writ petition has been filed more than one year after his superannuation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade the Court that he was pursuing the matter all along before the respondents by filing representations. The law stands well settled that mere filing of representations does not stand as an adequate explanation for delay unless and until a legal remedy was being pursued. In matters of seniority and promotion, the aggrieved is required to move expeditiously, as delay becomes very vital. Any consideration of the claim for substantive promotion at this belated stage is bound to have very serious cascading effect and shall cause service turbulence in the existing seniority list affecting third party rights. The petitioner cannot permitted to do so and this Court shall not 2 pass any such order creating turbulence. The Court therefore declines the prayer to be considered for substantive promotion on the post of Section Officer. Considering the aspect of delay in a stale claim for promotion, the Supreme Court has observed in AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 2271 (P. S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N) as follows at paragraph 2 as follows :- “2. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work.” In so far as the claim for grant of ACP benefit is concerned, Counsel for the State has very fairly acknowledged that the petitioner may represent for the same when his claim shall be duly considered. Let it be so done within a maximum period of four months from the date that the petitioner so represents along with of a copy of the present order. It is expected that if the respondents find justification in the claim of the petitioner for ACP or in any part of the same the consequential relief shall be granted simultaneously. 3 The writ application stands allowed but only to the extent indicated. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)