Patna High Court – Orders
Kamla Pati Lal Karn vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company … on 23 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1797 of 2017
======================================================
Kamla Pati Lal Karn Son of late Narain lal Das Resident of Village and P.O.
Nahas Rupuali, P.S. Bisti, District Madhubani 847222.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.
2. Managing Director, North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna-
3. Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Superintending Engineer, Mithila
Electric Supply Area, P.O. L
4. Electrical Executive Engineer,Electrical Supply Division, Madhubani, P.O.
and P.S. Madhubani, Distr
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Accounts
Clerk in the office of the Electricity Board, Darbhanga. He was
promoted by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer
Engineer, Mithila Area, Electricity Board, Darbhanga vide
Office Order No.797 and Memo No.5537 dated 12.12.1977.
2. Subsequently, by an order dated 02.01.1992 he was
reverted back to his Feeder Post as Junior Accounts Clerk. He
retired on superannuation, on 31.05.2006, except for the breve
period commencing from 12.12.1977 to 02.01.1992 the
petitioner went on discharging his duty as Junior Accounts Clerk
till his superannuation on 31.05.2006. Claiming promotion he
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/7
submitted representation in the year 2013, but his representation
was not considered by the respondent Authority. Therefore, the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition for issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent to give the benefit of
promotion from the post of Junior Accounts Clerk to the post of
Account Assistant as per Bihar State Electricity Board
(B.S.E.B.) Cadre Rule for the subordinate accounts service.
3. At the time of hearing, it is admitted by the learned
Advocate for the petitioner that during his service period, he
never made any complaint or submits any representation to the
Authority, claiming promotion as he was allowed to work as
Assistant.
4. It appears from the writ petition itself that the
petitioner was reverted back on 02.01.1992 and he filed the writ
petition in the year 2017, i.e. after a lapse of about 14 years and
after the expiry of 11 years from the date of his retirement.
There is no explanation with regard to the delay and latches in
filing the instant writ petition.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the B.S.E.B. has
challenged the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the
ground of delay and latches referring to a decision in the case of
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471. Paragraph Nos.24 to 29 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
3/7
above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
relevant for the purpose of this case and quoted below:-
“24. In Dayaram A. Gursahani v. State
of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 36
while reiterating the similar view this Court held
that in absence of satisfactory explanation for
inordinate delay of 8-9 years in questioning under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the
seniority and promotion assigned to other
employee could not be entertained.
25. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of
T.N., reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, this Court
considered the case where the petition was filed
after a lapse of fourteen years challenging the
promotion. However, this Court held that the
aggrieved person must approach the Court
expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to
put forward stale claim. The Court observed as
under: (SCC p. 154, para 2)
“2…. A person aggrieved by an order
promoting a junior over his head should approach
the Court at least within six months or at the most
a year of such promotion.”
The Court further observed that it was
not that there was any period of limitation for the
courts to exercise their powers under Article 226
nor was it that there could never be a case where
the courts cannot interfere in a matter after certain
length of time. It would be a sound and wise
exercise of jurisdiction for the courts to refuse to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
4/7
exercise their extraordinary powers under Article
226 in the case of persons who do not approach it
expeditiously a for relief and who stand by and
allow things to happen and then approach the
court to put forward stale claim and try to unsettle
settled matters.
26. A similar view has been reiterated
by this Court in Sudama Devi v. Commr.,
reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1; State of U.P. v. Raj
Bahadur Singh, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 685,
and Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant
Singh, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 335.
27. In Dinkar Anna Patil v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 354, this
Court held that delay and latches in challenging
the seniority is always fatal, but in case the party
satisfies the Court regarding delay, the case may
be considered.
28. In K.A. Abdul Majeed v. State of
Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 292, this Court
held that seniority assigned to any employee
could not be challenged after a lapse of seven
years on the ground that his initial appointment
had been irregular, though even on merit it was
found that seniority of the petitioner therein had
correctly been fixed.
29. It is settled law that fence-sitters
cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge
the validity of the order after its conclusion. No
party can claim the relief as a matter of right as
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
5/7
one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the
person approaching the court is guilty of delay
and the latches. The court exercising public law
jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale
claims where the right of third parties crystallises
in the interregnum. (Vide Aflatoon v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi, reported in (1975) 4 SCC
285: State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, reported in
(1976) 2 SCC 895; Municipal Council,
Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, reported in
(2000) 2 SCC 48; Inder Jit Gupta v. Union of
India, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 637; Shiv Dass
v. Union of India, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274;
A.P. SRTC v. N. Satyanarayana, reported in
(2008) 1 SCC 210, and City and Industrial
Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir
Bhiwandiwala), reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168.”
6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate on
behalf of the B.S.E.B. that Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) is
also a case relating to promotion and seniority. It is held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court under the facts and circumstances of
the case that the settled legal proposition that emerges is that
once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for
a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be
entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
6/7
remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not
be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for
challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue
of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and
latches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing
satisfactory explanation.
7. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of the B.S.E.B. that in the meantime, many
employees junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Account Assistant. Thus, when third party interest has been
created denying the right of promotion to the petitioner, the writ
petitioner cannot challenge the decision of the Board without
impleading them.
8. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
B.S.E.B. also refers to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs.
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in 2022(3) PLJR
(SC) 257, on the similar points of delay and latches. In
paragraph No.11 of the said judgment as well as in subsequent
paragraphs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
distinguish the ratio laid down in Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648. In Tarsem Singh
(supra), the delay of 16 years in approaching the Courts affected
Patna High Court CWJC No.1797 of 2017(5) dt.23-02-2026
7/7
the consequential claim for arrears and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court set aside the direction to pay arrears for 16 years with
interest, the Court restricted the relief relating to arrears to only
3 years before the date of writ petition or from the date of
demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser.
9. In the instant case, the writ petitioner retired from
service in the year 2006. All his pensionary dues and retiral
benefits have been settled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the
instant writ petition challenging the order of reversion to Feeder
Post, which took effect in the year 1992 after a lapse of 13
years.
10. Under such view of the matter, this Court has no
other alternative but to hold that the instant writ petition is not
maintainable on the ground of delay and latches.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed
on contest. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U
