High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Uddhav Prasad Mistry vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 9 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Uddhav Prasad Mistry vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 9 September, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CWJC No.13368 of 2005
                 UDDHAV PRASAD MISTRY, son of late Chinta Lal Mistry, resident
                 of village - Dafarpur, P S - Barahat, District - Banka, at present retired
                 Panchayat Sewak of Barahat Block under the district of Banka.
                                                   Versus
                 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Panchayat Raj,
                     Vishashwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
                 2. The Director, Panchayat Raj, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.
                 3. The District Magistrate, Banka.
                 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Banka.
                 5. The Block Development Officer, Barahat, Banka.
                                       -----------

For the petitioner: Mr. Kalika Nand Jha.

                 For the State     : Mr. S K Ghosh, Sr. Advocate.

02.   9.9.2010                Petitioner has claimed benefit of time-bound promotion

                  w.e.f. 29.4.1991.

Petitioner continued in service and superannuated in 2001.

There is nothing on record to show that he ever made demand upon the

respondents for grant of time-bound promotion till 27.2.2004, which is

Annexure-1 to the writ application. It seems that the application

contained in Annexure-1 was filed only with an object of making out a

case before filing of the present writ application in the year 2005.

These are matters which are stale and are belated claims

and therefore, the Court is not inclined to pass any categorical order in

favour of the petitioner, but if the District Magistrate, Banka is willing

to take action on the basis of communication issued to him, in terms of

Annexures A and B, which have been brought on record with the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, this Court will not come in

the way of the petitioner claiming such a benefit.

The writ application is disposed off as above.

rkp                                         ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)