Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being WPS No. 3852/2011 with the prayer that despite the fact that he has been working as a Family Welfare Health Assistant (Male Family Welfare Worker) from 22.07.1986 to the satisfaction of the authority, he has not been promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator, though persons junior to him were given promotion on the said post in the year 2008. Subsequently also in 2010, juniors to the petitioner were promoted, but the petitioner's case was not considered. He claims to have made representation before the Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand for giving promotion from the due date, where-after he had approached this Court. 3. Learned Single Judge on the said occasion, after considering the contention of the petitioner as well as counsel for the Union of India and State of Jharkhand, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Director-in-Health Services, Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator from the date when juniors to the petitioner, Mritunjay Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Pandey have been given promotion to the post of Block Extension Educator within a stipulated period. The respondent-Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand thereafter issued an order on 15.02.2012 granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Block Extension Educator with effect from 02.04.2008, however with certain conditions that he would produce the certificate of Graduation and passing of Departmental Hindi Examination. The petitioner's contempt petition being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 810/2011 for alleged disobedience of the aforesaid judgment was also disposed of in view of the order of promotion, however with liberty to challenge the order before an appropriate forum. 4. In the present writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for commanding the respondents to grant promotion to the post of Block Education Educator with qualifying dates, as granted to the juniors vide annexure-4. He has also made a claim for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy District Extension and Media Officer in terms of the direction passed earlier by this Court as also circular contained at annexures-2 & 3 to the writ petition. He has sought a direction upon the respondents for maintenance of seniority in the cadre and payment of salary and allowances with interest as he had suffered on account of such delay in promotion. 5. He has sought a direction upon the respondents for maintenance of seniority in the cadre and payment of salary and allowances with interest as he had suffered on account of such delay in promotion. 5. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner was put under suspension from the period 22.12.2005 to 09.06.2011 after being implicated in a criminal case lodged against him for the offences under sections 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that he has been acquitted in the said case in the year 2009. 6. From perusal of annexure-4 read with the judgment passed in the petitioner's case in WPS No. 3852./2011, it is noticed that the said Mritunjay Kumar who has been granted promotion as a Block Extension Educator with effect from 04.02.2008, belongs to the general category. The petitioner also has been granted promotion from the same date as directed by the earlier judgment in the writ petition. Though no name of any junior has been referred in the writ petition, but during course of argument, petitioner made the claim for being promoted ahead of one Prabhu Bhagat who is said to have been appointed on 17.09.1986 and was promoted on 17.09.1986 itself and belongs to Uraon tribe. In the first place, such claim of seeking promotion from the date as remote as September 1986 which is being raked in the present writ application in the year 2012, is wholly barred by delay and latches. On the other hand, no such persons whom petitioner claims to be junior to him, have been impleaded as party respondents in the instant case. 7. In the matter of promotion, as has been squarely held by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time, an aggrieved person is expected to raise his grievances within a reasonable time, may be one or two years from the date of cause of action. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & others vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [ (2013) 12 SCC 179 ]. In such circumstances, claim of the petitioner for being promoted with effect from 1986, cannot be accepted at this stage, neither have the persons who are going to be affected by such a claim, been impleaded as party respondents. In such circumstances, claim of the petitioner for being promoted with effect from 1986, cannot be accepted at this stage, neither have the persons who are going to be affected by such a claim, been impleaded as party respondents. It appears however from the same list that several persons who have been appointed earlier than the petitioner, have also been promoted from the same date i.e. 02.04.2008 like that of the petitioner. Even otherwise, in the judgment passed in the case of the petitioner earlier, learned Single Judge had directed the respondent-Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date certain juniors such as Mritunjay Kumar were given promotion as a Block Extension Educator. The order of promotion at annexure-4 shows that it has been passed from the same date i.e. 02.04.2008 when Mritunjay Kumar was promoted. 8. In such circumstances, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be allowed at this stage. The petitioner seems to have been working in the cadre of Block Extension Educator since 2008. If the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the next higher post, in terms of the service conditions, rules, circulars, etc, applicable to the petitioner's service, respondents would consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. However, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.