Patna High Court
Ram Kawal Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5251 of 2026
======================================================
Ram Kawal Ram Son of Late Ram Dahin Ram, Resident of Mohalla-
Harkhauli, Ward No. 3, Kharpakawa, P.O.-Mirganj, P.S.-Mirganj, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Command Area Development Directorate,
Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director (Chief Engineer), Water and Land Management Institute
(WALMI), Phulwair Sharif, Patna.
6. The Superintnding Engineer, Command Area Development Circle,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. N. H. Khan, SC-1
: Ms. Babita Kumari, AC to SC-1
For the Res. Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Harshvardhan Shivsundaram, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) and
direction(s) in the name of the respondents to
grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of
Asst. Engineer and subsequent promotion in the
rank of higher post of Executive Engineer.
(ii) Further prays for issuance of a direction in the
name of Respondents to grant salary and other
benefits of Asstt. Engineer for the period in which
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
2/8he has worked as Astt. Engineer and accordingly
grant all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition
are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the
year, 1980 in the Gandak Command Area Development Agency,
which is an autonomous body created under the Bihar Agriculture
Rural Development Agency Act, 1978. After completion of 8 years
of service, he became entitled for promotion to the higher post of
Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer, but the same was not
granted and later on in the year, 1996 vide office order no. 1182
dated 01.10.1996, the charge of Assistant Engineer was conferred
upon him, without any benefit of salary and other benefits attached
thereto. The petitioner after discharging the duties as Assistant
Engineer, superannuated from service on 31.03.2015. It is the case
of the petitioner that upgradation list of Junior Engineer was
prepared, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no.
8 and there were 13 posts, as such the petitioner was entitled for
being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer
in the year 1980 and was directed to perform the duties of
Assistant Engineer, without any benefits attached to the said post,
he was entitled for being promoted to the post of Assistant
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
3/8
Engineer, however the respondent authorities did not take any
decision on the regular promotion of the petitioner. He submits
that similarly situated persons filed a writ petition before this
Hon’ble Court for similar relief. The said writ petition was
numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1476 of 2012 (Mahesh Prasad Singh
versus the State of Bihar and others) and was heard along with one
another case, wherein vide judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed by a
Hon’ble Division Bench of this court, similar benefits were
allowed to similarly situated persons. He submits that in view
thereof, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents submits that the petitioner superannuated from
service on 31.03.2015 and during his entire service period or even
after his retirement, he did not raise any grievance before any of
the authorities concerned and now after 11 years of his retirement,
he has filed the present writ petition for giving similar relief,
which has been given to the persons, who approached this Hon’ble
Court in 2012 itself and the order in their case was passed in 2018.
The petitioner was aware about his rights, even then he waived his
rights by not raising any dispute/grievance before any of the
authorities during his service period or even after his retirement.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
4/8
Therefore, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner
was appointed in the year 1980 and was given the charge of
Assistant Engineer on 01.10.1996. He kept on working on said
post as an Ad-hoc Arrangement. He never raised any
grievance/claim before the respondent authorities and happily
retired on 31.03.2015. He waited for 11 years to woke up from
slumber and approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition. During his service period and even after his retirement, he
waived his right by not raising any grievance against the inaction
of the authorities concerned in not granting promotion to him. The
law in this regard is very much settled. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in a judgment reported in 2015(1) SCC 347 (State
of Uttar Pradesh and Others versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava
and Others), in paragraph nos. 20, 21, 22.2 and 23 has held as
follows:-
“20. The Court also quoted the following passage from
Halsbury’s Laws of England (para 911, p. 395) :
(Jaswant Singh case [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant
Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)
500] , SCC pp. 470-71, para 12)
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
5/8“12. … ‘In determining whether there has been such
delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be
considered are:
(i) acquiescence on the claimant’s part; and
(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the
defendant’s part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing
by while the violation of a right is in progress, but
assent after the violation has been completed and
the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to
give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct,
he has done that which might fairly be regarded
as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his
conduct and neglect, though not waiving the
remedy, he has put the other party in a position in
which it would not be reasonable to place him if
the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such
cases lapse of time and delay are most material.
Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of
laches.'”
21. Holding that the respondents had also acquiesced in
accepting the retirements, the appeal of U.P. Jal
Nigam was allowed with the following reasons :
(Jaswant Singh case [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant
Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S)
500] , SCC p. 471, para 13)“13. In view of the statement of law as summarised
above, the respondents are guilty since the
respondents have acquiesced in accepting the
retirement and did not challenge the same in time. If
they would have been vigilant enough, they could
have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
6/8
Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants
lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the
occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in
such cases, the court should be very slow in granting
the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be
taken into consideration the question of acquiescence
or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other
parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is
granted. In the present case, if the respondents would
have challenged their retirement being violative of
the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could
have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to
meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the
respondents have allowed time to pass and after a
lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions
claiming the benefit for two years. That will
definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is
going to have serious financial repercussions on the
financial management of the Nigam. Why should the
court come to the rescue of such persons when they
themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence?”
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and
delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who
did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases
and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long
delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier
in time succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated
persons be extended to them. They would be treated
as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
7/8acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss
their claim.
23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find
that the selection process took place in the year
1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year
1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated 22-
6-1987. The respondents before us did not challenge
these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a
period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted
the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up
in the year 1996 only after finding that some other
persons whose appointment orders were also
cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had
passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief
to the parties before the Court. It would also be
pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not
joined service nor working like the employees who
succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of
today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of
cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was there
unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim
petition after a period of 9 years, it would be totally
unjust to direct the appellants to give them
appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27
years when most of these respondents would be
almost 50 years of age or above.”
7. Similar view has been taken by a Hon’ble Division Bench
of this Court in its judgment dated 24.03.2026 passed in L.P.A.
No. 891 of 2025 (The Patna High Court versus Chandan Kumar
and Others), wherein after considering the case of Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench proceeded to allow
Patna High Court CWJC No.5251 of 2026 dt.09-04-2026
8/8
the writ petition filed by the Patna High Court, by holding that
similarly situated persons are ordinarily entitled to equal treatment,
however this principle is subject to exceptions, particularly in
cases involving delay, laches and acquiescence. Persons who wake
up after a long delay cannot claim similar relief as those, who
approached the Court on time.
8. Accordingly, in view of the settled propositions of
law, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the
same is dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, shall also stands disposed
of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.04.2026 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link
