IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1478 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8527 of 2009
======================================================
Jagdish Pathak, S/o Ramashray Pathak, Resident of Village-Pakri, Police
Station-Dumariya Ghat, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Liquor
Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Under Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Liquor
Prohibition, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, East Champaran, At, P.O. &
Police Station-Motihari.
5. Registrar General, Bihar at Patna.
6. District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran, At, P.O. & Police Station-
Motihari, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No.1, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
5. 15-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
18th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above
2 Patna High Court LPA No.1478 of 2011 (5) dt.15-11-2011
2/3
C.W.J.C. No. 8527 of 2009, the writ petitioner has preferred this
Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
The appellant is a retired Government servant. He
retired as Clerk in 2005. In the writ petition filed in the year 2009,
the appellant claimed that the appellant was entitled to time bound
promotion in 1991 as envisaged by Government resolution
No.10770F dated 30th December 1981 and that he be given benefit
of Assured Career Progression. The learned single Judge has
rejected the claim in respect of time bound promotion effective
from 1991. So far as Assured Career Progression is concerned, the
learned single Judge has reserved liberty to the appellant to make a
representation on the ground of hostile discrimination.
Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred
this Appeal.
Although learned advocate Mr. Uma Kant Shukla
appearing for the appellant has produced copy of the part of the
aforesaid resolution dated 30th December 1981, we can safely say
that the said resolution assured time bound promotion to
Government servants provided such Government servant “is
otherwise fit for promotion”. The claim of the appellant was
specifically rejected on the ground that he did not acquire
qualification for promotion to the higher post. Before the learned
single Judge the appellant failed to establish that the appellant was
otherwise fit for promotion and thus was entitled to time bound
promotion; nor before us the appellant has succeeded in
establishing his claim for time bound promotion. Besides, the
claim is too stale to be entertained in a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution. The claim has been made more than 15 years
after the date of cause of action and three years after the retirement
3 Patna High Court LPA No.1478 of 2011 (5) dt.15-11-2011
3/3
of the appellant from service. In our opinion, the learned single
Judge has rightly rejected the claim for time bound promotion.
As to the Assured Career Progression, as observed by
the learned single Judge relevant materials are not placed on
record. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge has allowed the
appellant to make a representation on the ground of hostile
discrimination. We are of the opinion that the appellant could not
have been granted relief beyond the aforesaid liberty reserved by
the learned single Judge.
No case for interference is made out. Appeal is
dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Pawan/-