Patna High Court - Orders
Raj Kishore Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 December, 2010
Bench: Chief Justice, Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1901 of 2010
IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE. NO.18090 of 2009
WITH
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 9951 of 2010
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1901 of 2010
===============================================
RAJ KISHORE PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
===================================================
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Pandey, GAVII
============================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 1/12/2010IA.No.9951 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 145 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. LPA. No. 1901 of 2010 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th April 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.18090 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2In a petition filed in the year 2009, 11 years after the date of retirement on 31st March 1998, the appellant, Lower Division Clerk, prayed for promotion as Upper Division Clerk effective from 1st April 1981, Supertime Scale effective from 1st March 1989 and a further promotion as Employment Officer as on 20th August 1989. According to the appellant, he had continuously made representations in respect of his supersession. The claim has been rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground of grossly belated and stale.
Learned advocate Mr.Rajpati has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. Though his juniors were promoted on 1st April 1981, he has been deprived of the promotion. Earlier he had made a number of representations. He had also approached this Court in CWJC. No.13575 of 2005, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 30th August 2007. The learned Single Judge has made reference of the earlier order also. Even the petition in the year 2005 was filed grossly belated, 7 years after the date of retirement.
We agree with the learned Single Judge. The claim made by the appellant must fail on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal in limine.
( R. M. Doshit,CJ.)
Neyaz/ ( Jyoti Saran, J.)
3
Neyaz/