This petition challenged an order granting Additional Category Point benefits and a subsequent rejection of representation. The court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of delay and laches in questioning the impugned order from 2011, rather than on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6846 of 2021
======================================================
Kameshwar Prasad Sinha S/o Deonandan Yadav, R/o village-Vigrahpur, POGPO, PS-Jakkanpur, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gaurav Govind, Advocate For the BPSC : Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-02-2022
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the office order no. 337 dated 14.03.2011 in so far it concerns the petitioner by which the benefit of 1st A.C.P. has been given to the petitioner with effect from 14.01.2008.
(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Office Order No. 67 dated 11.06.2020 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission by which representation filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 29.01.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16085/19 has been rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6846 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 2/4
(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of first A.C.P. from 04.11.2006 and second M.A.C.P. from 04.11.2014 with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date it became due till its actual payment.
(iv) For issuance of any other writ/writs/order/orders or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
“(i) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner and pay arrear of pension with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date it became due till the date of its payment.
(ii) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay leave encashment, gratuity to the petitioner with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date it became due till the date of its payment.
(iii) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to grant Second M.A.C.P. to the petitioner from 19.02.2015 as decided vide Office Order No. 204 dated 15.09.2016 with interest calculated @ 18% per annum from the date it became due till the date of its payment.
(iv) For issuance of any other writ/writs/order/orders or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.6846 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 3/4
to the order dated 14.03.2011. For the first time petitioner has questioned the order dated 14.03.2011. Earlier order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16085 of 2019 and decided on 29.01.2020 do not enure the benefit of condonation of delay in questioning the order dated 14.03.2011 for the reasons that petitioner had not questioned the order dated 14.03.2011 in CWJC No. 16085 of 2019.
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 if duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against
Patna High Court CWJC No.6846 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022 4/4
public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.”
One of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to examine delay and laches.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an office order can be entertained despite a long unexplained delay in filing.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case despite delay and laches in questioning the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. ZalpuriRelied on¶34
State of Jammu and Kashmir V. R.K. Zalpuri AIR 2016 SC 3006 · Who else cites this
City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and OthersReferred¶35
City and Industrial Development Corporation V. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others
Kameshwar Prasad Sinha
The Bihar Public Service Commission
P. B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
