Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 234 (PAT)

Ganga Prasad Gangesh v. State of Bihar

2011-02-04

body2011
ORDER This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 15.11.2010 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 5041 of 2010. 2. The appellants-writ petitioners are the retired government employees. They were promoted as Assistant Engine 1rs in the year 1986. Later by order made in the year 1992 the petitioners and other Assistant Engineers were given deemed promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from 25.01.1979, but without monetary benefits thereof. Feeling aggrieved some of the Assistant Engineers approached this Court in CWJC No. 3113 of 1997. By the judgment and order dated 10.04.1997 passed by this Court those writ petitioners were allowed monetary benefits with effect from the date of deemed promotion. The appellants, however, did not get the benefit of that decision. They, therefore, approached this Court in the above CWJC No. 5041 of 2010. In the meanwhile all the appellants have retired from service between the years 2001 and 2003. 3. The claim of the appellant has not been entertained by the learned single Judge on the grounds of delay and laches. On the request of the appellants, the learned single Judge has permitted the appellants to approach the authorities below. However, it is observed that the decision on the representation will not give a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the present Appeal. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Sanjeet Kumar appears for the appellants. He has strenuously urged that the appellants have been discriminated as the other similarly situated Assistant Engineers did get monetary benefits of deemed promotion which has been denied to the appellants. 5. We do appreciate the grievance made by the appellants. However, it cannot be ignored that the order for deemed promotion was made as far back as in the year 1992. The appellants did not choose to challenge the same until 2010, i.e., nearly 20 years after the date of the cause of action and more than five years after the date of retirement from service. The learned single Judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.