JUDGMENT : The State of Jharkhand is aggrieved of the order dated 05th February 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.1143 of 2009. By the said order, the learned writ Court issued a direction to the respondents to give due consideration to the aspect of “Kalawadhi”, if a representation is made by the writ petitioner. 2. By the order dated 05th February 2018, the learned writ Court issued the following direction: “7. Be that as it may since it appears that proper consideration has not been made with respect to the aspect of 5 years Kalawadhi which was to be considered and which also provides a relaxation of one year which would entitle the petitioner to come within the domain for consideration but he has been given promotion w.e.f. 27.10.1996 and the said aspect having not been properly considered by the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 2 who shall on submission of said representation consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter pass necessary orders expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.” 3. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) was appointed in the year 1975 on the post of Agriculture Inspector. By an order dated 12th October 1993, he was given the basic grade of Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission with effect from 27th October 1986. He pleaded before the writ Court that his name was recommended for promotion to a Class-I post with effect from 27th October 1991 in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 24th/26th April 1995, however, on account of some dispute as regards reservation policy the same could not be given effect to. Finally he was promoted to a Class-I post with effect from 27th October 1996 in Junior Selection Grade. He was allocated Jharkhand Cadre on 09th May 2006 and though in the seniority list published vide notification dated 03rd July 2007 his named figured at serial no. 2 he was not granted regular promotion on the higher posts. Finally he was promoted to a Class-I post with effect from 27th October 1996 in Junior Selection Grade. He was allocated Jharkhand Cadre on 09th May 2006 and though in the seniority list published vide notification dated 03rd July 2007 his named figured at serial no. 2 he was not granted regular promotion on the higher posts. He came before the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2508 of 2007 claiming regular promotion in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-with effect from 27th October 1991, scale of Joint Director in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-16,500/-with effect from 27th October 1996 and the pay scale of Rs.14,300-18,300/- with effect from 27th October 2001. 4. These prayers were added subsequently by filing I.A. No.2777 of 2007 which was allowed by the writ Court vide order dated 01st October 2007. 5. By the same order, writ petition was disposed of in the following terms: “.......In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents for preparation of the gradation list and giving due promotion. When this writ petition is taken up today (1.10.2007), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Departmental Promotion Committee has already been constituted vide Memo no. 1976 dated 7.8.2007. The petitioner has filed his representation before the Department for consideration of his promotion and the same is pending. Learned J.C. to G.P.IV submitted that the petitioner's representation is pending before the Department and without waiting for the order of the department, he has rushed to this Court. If the petitioner's representation is still pending, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 6. It appears that after the writ petitioner filed Contempt (Civil) Case No.22 of 2008 the respondents issued notification dated 11th January 2009 by which he was granted pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He then filed W.P.(S) No.1143 of 2009 which, as noticed above, has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 05th February 2018. 7. Mr. It appears that after the writ petitioner filed Contempt (Civil) Case No.22 of 2008 the respondents issued notification dated 11th January 2009 by which he was granted pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-. He then filed W.P.(S) No.1143 of 2009 which, as noticed above, has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 05th February 2018. 7. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that no finding has been recorded by the learned writ Court in the order dated 05th February 2018 and without any adjudication the writ petitioner was consigned to the same position as he stood before approaching the Court, with liberty to file a representation before the respondents. 8. The learned counsel has taken us through various documents annexed with memo of appeal, particularly, the proceedings dated 13th December 2008, 06th January 2009 and 09th January 2009 to submit that all posts after creation of the State of Jharkhand in Agriculture Service (Rajpatrit) Class-II remained vacant for years together but promotion to the writ petitioner from the appropriate date was not granted to him. 9. The submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner is that without any fault on his part the benefits accruing to him in terms of the Service Rules could not have been denied to him. 10. Mrs. Shruti Shrestha, the learned AC to Sr. SC-II, controverts the above submissions and refers to the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court to submit that the writ petition itself was liable to be dismissed. 11. At the outset, we may indicate that W.P. (S) No.1143 of 2009 was filed after the writ petitioner superannuated from service in February 2009. The facts disclosed before the writ Court indicate that for long 32 years the writ petitioner did not raise any grievance in respect of his claim for promotion with due date by approaching the Court. The order dated 01st October 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.2508 of 2007 records that by that time he had filed a representation which was pending for consideration before the respondents. The order dated 01st October 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.2508 of 2007 records that by that time he had filed a representation which was pending for consideration before the respondents. It was only after a direction was issued by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2508 of 2007 that the writ petitioner taking a leaf from the said order started pursuing his claim for promotion in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,200/-with effect from 27th October 1991 – from a date about 16 years prior to his first foray in the Court by way of W.P.(S) No.2508 of 2007. 12. We further find that he took a plea of discrimination, inasmuch as, few co-employees including Smt. Basanti Tirky were granted relaxation in terms of the resolution dated 16th May 1978 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform & Rajbhasa. On examination of the writ Court records, which are attached with the present appeal, we find that the pleadings in this regard were lacking in details in the writ petition. We also take note of the fact that in the first representation dated 05th September 2007 and also in his representation which was submitted by him on 24th January 2009, the writ petitioner vaguely mentioned that juniors to him were granted regular promotion. 13. The claim raised by the writ petitioner was wholly unmerited and we are satisfied that the learned writ Court perhaps being sympathetic granted liberty to him to file a representation with a direction to the respondent to consider his case. 14. The exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not automatic on mere filing of writ petition. Delay and laches in approaching the writ Court are well known grounds for refusing the relief. An employee under the government has a statutory right to seek promotion but, except under exceptional circumstances, this right cannot be enforced by him after his superannuation from service. Even during the period the employee is in service his claim for service related promotions cannot be considered ignoring the cascading effect that may ensue and affect the whole cadre, if a grossly belated claim is considered by the Court. In the up a cause which was wholly unmerited and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. In the up a cause which was wholly unmerited and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold. We are conscious that the writ petitioner could not be in a worse position by having preferred the Letters Patent Appeal, but then, keeping his representation alive, if any, in the file of the respondents would not serve any purpose much less any cause of justice. 15. Besides that, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same does not appear to be maintainable because the order dated 05th February 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.1143 of 2009 is not a “judgment” under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by the High Court of Jharkhand). 16. After having considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that litigations like the present one are the kind of litigations which have caused explosion of dockets in the Courts. The notification dated 11th January 2009 was issued under the threat of contempt and there was gross delay, laches and negligence on the part of writ petitioner in approaching the Court at the first instance. Therefore, we dismiss LPA No. 163 of 2018 as well as W.P.(S) No.1143 of 2009 by modifying the order dated 05th February 2018.