IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5041 of 2010 1. GANGA PRASAD GANGESH S/O LATE DASAIN PRASAD R/O 203, PAVITRA APARTMENT, NEW YARPUR, P.S - GARDANIBAGH, PATNA 2. RAJ BALLABH SINGH S/O LATE BHORAI SINGH R/O SIRISTABAD WEST , P.O - ANISABAD, P.S - GARDANIBAGH, PATNA. 3. KRISHNA KUMAR SINHA S/O LATE RAM CHARITRA PRASAD R/O GANDHI MURTI, PATEL NAGAR, ROAD NO.3, P.S - SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA-23. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. UNDER SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY PERSONAL CLAIMS CELL, FINANCE DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PANT BHAWAN, PATNA ----------- 2. 15.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. I.A. No. 3233 of 2010 has been filed for impleading one Ram Ayodhya Singh as intervenor petitioner. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering that the relief sought by him is the same as the original petitioners, in order to shorten the litigation, this Court considers it prudent to allow the I.A. subject to payment of full Court fee. The petitioners are stated to have superannuated from the post of Assistant Engineer (Mech.) on 30.11.2001, 31.1.2000, 31.12.2003 respectively while the 2 date of superannuation of the intervenor petitioner has not been mentioned. It is submitted that a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997 and analogous cases disposed on 10.4.1997 granted relief with regard to the date of promotion from 25.1.1979 along with interest at 8% in certain periods and 12 % for the remaining period. Accordingly, the petitioners have been granted the benefit of retrospective promotion but the actual monitory benefits have not been made available to them. Strong reliance has been placed on a Bench decision in C.W.J.C. No. 1170 of 2001, disposed on 4.8.2008 to submit that this Court has given directions in a similar matter for like treatment as per the direction contained in C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997. The petitioners have preferred the present writ application in March, 2010. There is no statement of the steps, if any, taken by them after the promotion granted to them on 9.8.1999 to pursue their remedies in accordance with law and avail the full benefits of the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioner have woken up only after the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1170 of 2001. The law stands well settled that those who come to the Court in time seeking relief stand in a 3 class by themselves as distinct from those who may be classified as indolent or fence sitters awaiting the outcome of order in other similar matters. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1170 of 2001 came to this Court soon after the order dated 10.4.1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 3113 of 1997. On the own showing of the petitioners orders for their promotion has been passed on 9.8.1999. There is no explanation in the writ petition for this complete silence on their part from 1999 to 2010. The fact that the writ petition instituted in the year 2001 may have been disposed off in 2008, shall not vest a cause of action in the petitioners to maintain the present writ application seeking relief on the principle of parity. In 2007(2) SCC 725 A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala,it has been held in Paragraph-40 that denial of similar relief is justified to those who do not come to the Court in time seeking relief on parity. 40. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief.” 4 Leave is then sought to represent before the authorities. If the petitioners represent, the respondents are expected to consider the representation but any fresh order passed on such representation shall not amount to condonation of the delay on their part for having moved this Court belatedly so as to maintain a fresh cause of action on such fresh orders. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)