[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Saraswati Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 17 February, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9397 of 2024
======================================================
Saraswati Devi wife of Late Ram Naresh Sah, Resident of Village -
Paharichak Praveza, P. O. and P. S.- Sonpur, District - Saran (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The District Vector Born Disease Control Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. The District Malaria Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
8. The Principle Accountant General (A and E), Bihar, Patna
9. The Treasury Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raju Patel, (AC to AG)
Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate
For the AG : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant
General, Bihar, Patna.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
2/8
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions for commanding the respondents to pay the
arrear amount after granting 1st Time Bound Promotion of the
husband of the petitioner who was retired as Field Worker and
his time bound promotion was due from 11.06.1989 with other
consequential allowances in different heads including retiral
benefits amount with interest and for grant of any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on
11.06.1979
on the post of Field Worker in the office of the
District Malaria Officer, Saran at Chapra and retired on
29.02.1996. He further submits that after retirement, all retiral
dues amount was paid to the husband of the petitioner and P.P.O
has also been issued to the husband of the petitioner except
benefits of 1st Time Bound Promotion. Counsel submits that
there is a specific provision for grant of 1st Time Bound
Promotion after completion of 10 years to all government
employees of the State of Bihar. The husband of the petitioner
completed 10 years of service on 11.06.1989, but 1 st Time
Bound Promotion was not given to the husband of the petitioner.
Counsel submits that the husband of the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
demanded information in this regard under Right To
Information, and then in the year 2019, he received information
that the benefits of 1st Time Bound Promotion has not been
granted to him. Counsel further submits that the respondent no.6
send a request letter to the Additional Director cum State
Programme Officer, Vector Born Disease Control Programme,
Bihar, Patna for grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion to the
petitioner vide Memo No. 325 dated 31.07.2019, but till date, 1st
Time Bound Promotion has not been given to the petitioner's
husband. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband died on
15.01.2022. After the death of petitioner's husband, the
petitioner filed fresh application on 24.04.2024 (Annexure-P/6)
and thereafter, filed the present writ petition with limited prayer
of grant of 1st Time Bound Promotion of her husband w.e.f.
11.06.1989.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that
according to the case of petitioner, the petitioner's husband was
in service since 1979 and he become entitled for getting 1 st Time
Bound Promotion since 1989, but he wake up for his relief for
the first time in the year 2019 i.e. about lapse of 30 years. He
further submits that the petitioner's husband sat over the matter
and thereafter, the petitioner in the year 2024 filed the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
writ petition i.e. after lapse of five years. In this view of the
matter, about 35 years have already been lapsed since 1989.
Counsel submits that with regard to the claim with delay, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically decided a
case Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
& Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108,
whose para 16 and 17 are very much relevant discussed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of delay.
5. Learned counsel for the State further relied on
the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated
11.03.2024 in case of Gyasuddin @ Gyasuddin Khan Vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13306 of 2023
and submits that this writ petition was dismissed on the ground
of delay and latches as well, inasmuch as the petitioner has
approached this Court belatedly after an unexplained delay of
26 years. Here in the present case also, the delay is about 35
years i.e. from 1989 to 2024.
6. After hearing the parties, it is admitted position
that the husband of the petitioner was in service since 1979 and
according to the claim of the petitioner, the cause of action has
arisen in the year 1989 and the writ petition has been filed in the
year 2024. In this regard, it is necessary to quote para 16 and 17
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
of the judgment of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board & Ors. (supra) which reads as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ
court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same.
The court should bear in mind that it is
exercising an extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has
a duty to protect the rights of the citizens
but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive
to the primary principle that when an
aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at his own
leisure or pleasure, the court would be
under legal obligation to scrutinise
whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes
in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the
litigant who knocks at the doors of the
court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of
time" and second, law does not permit one
to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has
been four years' delay in approaching the
court, yet the writ court chose not to
address the same. It is the duty of the court
to scrutinise whether such enormous delay
is to be ignored without any justification.
That apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more significance
as the respondent employee being
absolutely careless to his duty and
nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the
responsibility had remained unauthorisedly
absent on the pretext of some kind of ill
health. We repeat at the cost of repetition
that remaining innocuously oblivious to
such delay does not foster the cause of
justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others.
Such delay may have impact on others'
ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag
others into litigation which in acceptable
realm of probability, may have been treated
to have attained finality. A court is not
expected to give indulgence to such
indolent persons- who compete with
"Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip
Van Winkle". In our considered opinion,
such delay does not deserve any indulgence
and on the said ground alone the writ court
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
should have thrown the petition overboard
at the very threshold."
7. As well as in the case of Gyasuddin @
Gyasuddin Khan (supra), its para 11 is very much relevant
which reads as under:-
"11. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the
reasons mentioned hereinabove in the
preceding paragraphs, the present writ
petition stands dismissed, being barred by
the principles of res judicata. This Court
further finds that the present writ petition is
fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches as well, inasmuch as the
petitioner has approached this Court
belatedly after an unexplained delay of 26
years. Thus considering the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
catena of judgments, as referred to herein
above in the preceding paragraphs, as also
considering the maxim- "equity aids the
vigilant and not those who slumber on their
rights", this Court is of the view that since
the petitioner has not filed the present writ
petition within a reasonable period of time,
this Court is not under any legal obligation
to entertain the writ petition, especially
considering the fact that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.9397 of 2024 dt.17-02-2026
not offered any reason whatsoever, for the
enormous delay which has taken place in
approaching this Court, hence, the present
writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and latches as well."
8. In the light of the submissions made and the law
discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court & the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, this Court finds that there is no merit in this
case due to delay and latches. Hence, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
