Dismissed

Ram Surith Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC27 Jan 2009CWJC/6882/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a writ petition seeking time-bound promotion. The court held the claim was barred by constructive res judicata due to laches, as the petitioner voluntarily ignored multiple earlier opportunities to pursue the matter, making the current application belated.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is disposed of with no merit found; no promotion granted.

Ram Surith Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.6882 of 2002
 RAM SURITH SINGH
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
 -----------

¶2

6/ 27/01/2009.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶4

The petitioner superannuated on 30.9.1999 from the post of Junior Chemical Assistant in the service of the State Government under Agriculture Department. During his service tenure he came first before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2739/95 for consideration of his case for promotion from the post of Junior Chemical Analyst to the post of Market Secretary, (a Class-2 post). He then again came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8236/97 with allegations of anomaly in his pay scale. Thereafter, when

¶5

he superannuated, he came to this Court again in C.W.J.C. No.1467/01 with regard to his post retiral dues.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly acknowledges that the present claim of time bound promotion was a cause of action which had already accrued to the petitioner even prior to the institution of the first writ application in 1995. The petitioner, however, did not consider it prudent to pursue the same though he came to this Court on two subsequent

¶7

¶8

occasions. The justification sought to be given before this Court is a publication by the respondent department on 23.7.2001 inviting applications from those who were aggrieved with the issue of promotion connected to their post retiral dues.

¶9

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It urges that the petitioner had already got a substantive promotion from the post of Laboratory Attendant to the post of a Price Reporter and was, therefore, not entitled to the time bound promotion. Be that as it may, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with these aspects of the matter.

¶10

From the own pleadings of the petitioner, his claim for grant of time bound promotion is barred by constructive res judicata. He had more than one opportunity to agitate the claim, but on each occasion he chose to give it a go-bye. The notification dated 23.7.2001, to this Court, cannot be read in the manner that the petitioner seeks to do. The tenor of the notice is that the Government was concerned with regard to pending post retiral matters and in respect of which there have been several orders of the courts. It was in that context that the Government issued the notice that those whose promotional orders were integrally connected to their post retiral benefit may represent.

¶11

¶12

This obviously related to a case where post retiral dues were still pending or orders of promotion had been ignored while considering the same. The present is a unique case where the petitioner had more than adequate opportunity to press his claim but he voluntarily gave it a go-bye. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to allow him to agitate the matter by issuance of my orders in that regard. To that extent, this Court finds no merit in this writ application, which is belated and hit by laches also.

¶13

This Court, however, makes no observation

¶14

with regard to the Government Instruction dated 23.7.2001. That is an aspect to be exercised by the respondents in their own wisdom for which the petitioner is stated to have filed a representation. The refusal of this Court to interfere for reasons discussed, cannot be understood to mean that the Court finds no merit in his claim which is to be enquired into in terms of the representation filed by him.

¶15

The writ application is disposed in the

¶16

aforesaid terms.

¶17

¶18

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Ram Surith Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Surith Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muneshwar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shyama Nand Mandal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kripal Chandra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Madhuri Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nehru College,Shafqatnagar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.