Rameshwar Ray vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13104 of 2026
======================================================
Rameshwar Ray Son of Late Gorakh Ray, Resident of village- Jamunapur,
P.O- Rajpur, P.S- Rajpur, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Block Development Officer, Block- Kotwa, District- East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rashmi Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-08-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction
upon the respondent authorities to grant benefits of ACP/MACP to
the petitioner, which he is entitled since 22.08.2000. Further, for
direction upon the respondent authorities to release arrears of the
increment, which is due since 2000 and also for direction upon the
respondent authorities to incorporate/add the name of petitioner’s
wife, namey, Gita Devi in the pension account (PPO) at the
earliest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Secretary on

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
2/13
22.08.1990 and superannuated from the same post in the year,
2015. She submits that the petitioner was eligible for grant of first
ACP/MACP on 22.08.2000 and second ACP/MACP on
22.08.2010, however the same was not granted to the petitioner.
He submitted a representation before the Block Development
Officer, Kotwa, East Champaran on 07.01.2020 with regard to
grant of ACP/MACP, but no action was taken on the said
representation. She submits that the first wife of the petitioner died
in the year 1990 and he got married with one Gita Devi and
thereafter, he submitted several applications before the authorities
to update his service book and to add the name of his second wife
Gita Devi, but the same was not done. She submits that after
issuance of the PPO, the petitioner came to know that his wife’s
name is not incorporated therein and therefore, he again wrote a
letter to the authorities, however no action was taken.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is running from pillar to post for redressal of his
grievance, however no action has been taken by the authorities
concerned to redress the same. She submits that the case of the
petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, since he has already
retired and is a dependent person now and his arrears have not
been paid by the authorities. She submits that the case of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
3/13
petitioner, if not considered, he will suffer irreparable loss on
account of non-consideration of his case.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition for grant of ACP/MACP benefit w.e.f.
22.08.2000. He submits that although the petitioner superannuated
from service in 2015, however he did not raise his grievance
before any of the authorities till he was in service and even after
retirement, he submitted an application on 07.01.2020 and
thereafter, he again slept over his rights. He again submitted a
representation in 2026 and thereafter filed the present writ petition,
which itself is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was
appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on 22.08.1990 and
superannuated in 2015. He did not raise any grievance with regard
to the prayers made in the writ petition, till he was in service and
even after his retirement, he did not raise any grievance before the
authorities and subsequently, filed a representation on 07.01.2020.
He again slept over his right and never raised any grievance before
any of the authorities. In the entire pleading, not a chit of paper has

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
4/13
been brought on record to suggest that he was denied his
legitimate claim, which was asked for by him except for one
representation, which was received in the office of the respondents
on 07.01.2020 and thereafter, he has also annexed one another
representation, however the same is undated and without any
receipt before any of the authorities. Further, so far his claim for
directing the respondents to incorporate/add the name of his
second wife in the Pension Paper are concerned, from the
pleadings in the writ petition, it appears that although he came to
know about the same in 2015, however he did not raise any
grievance with the authorities for almost 11 years and all of a
sudden, he woke up from slumber and has filed the present writ
petition.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of
any supporting document, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
cannot be maintained. Further, he has retired in 2015 and slept
over his right for almost 11 years and now, he is praying for grant
of the benefits w.e.f. 2000, which he never asked for during his
entire service period. Further, no document to support his claim
has been brought on record, while filing the writ petition. The law
with regard to stale claim is very much clear.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
5/13
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent
decision reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1648 (State of
Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Versus Jameet Singh & Anr.) , in
paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 has held as follows:-
“ 11. We may now consider the objection of the
appellants that in service matters, fence-
sitters cannot ordinarily claim the benefit of
a subsequent development merely because
they may be similarly situated to persons
who had diligently pursued their claims
before the appropriate forum at the relevant
time.
12. In the present case, there was no
representation whatsoever much less any
proceedings before an appropriate forum
initiated by the respondents until the
judgment in LPA No. 105 of 2010 and its
analogous cases dated 13.12.2012. The
cause of action arose between the years
1998 and 2000. Thus, approaching the
Court after more than twelve years, cannot
be regarded as bona fide conduct.
13. Further, the respondents were aware of what
was ultimately held in the judgment dated
13.12.2012 in LPA No. 105 of 2010 and
analogous cases, wherein the principle
governing payment had been clearly spelt
out. There is absolutely no explanation as to
why despite being aware of the said
judgment, the respondents, though not JBT
Teachers, did not specifically plead before

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
6/13
the High Court in their writ petition that
their case was also covered by the principle
laid down in the proceedings culminating in
LPA No. 108 of 2012. Even the Division
Bench of the High Court, while disposing of
the writ petition filed by the respondents,
granted relief in terms of LPA No. 105 of
2010 and analogous cases. Thus, there can
be no ambiguity or confusion with regard to
the intent and import of the order passed in
the case of the respondents.
14. We accordingly, hold that the order dated
10.01.2013 is required to be implemented in
accordance with the principle laid down by
the Division Bench in its judgment dated
13.12.2012 in LPA No. 105 of 2010 and
analogous cases, that is, the respondents
would be entitled to the initial of the pay
scale attached to the posts of JBT Teachers,
as revised from time to time. Thus, the
respondents would be entitled to the pay
scale of Rs. 6,400/- prior to 31.12.2005 and
Rs. 10,300/- with effect from 01.01.2006, as
a necessary consequence of the order passed
by the High Court, which was required only
to be implemented.”
9. Further, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide
its order dated 09.09.2024 passed in L.P.A. No. 141 of 2024 (the
State of Bihar & Ors. versus Dr. Sarju Prasad @ Sarjoo Prasad),
while considering the delay in grant of relief to which the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
7/13
respondent in that case was entitled after his retirement in 2002, in
paragraph nos. 16 to 20 has held as follows:-
“16. At this stage, it would be relevant to take
into consideration the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of C.
Jacob vs Director of Geology and Mining &
Another; (2008) 10 SCC 115, State of
Jammu & Kashmir vs R.K Zalpuri &
Others; AIR 2016 SC 3006 and Surjeet
Singh Sahni vs State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others; (2022) 15 SCC 536.
17. In the case of C. Jacob (supra), with respect
to filing of representation after much delay,
getting an order from Court with respect to
disposal of the representation and on an
order being passed on merits disposing of
the said representation contending that a
fresh cause of action has arisen, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed as follows :-
“10. Every representation to the Government
for relief, may not be replied on merits.
Representations relating to matters which
have become stale or barred by
limitation, can be rejected on that ground
alone, without examining the merits of the
claim. In regard to representations
unrelated to the Department, the reply
may be only to inform that the matter did
not concern the Department or to inform
the appropriate Department.
Representations with incomplete
particulars may be replied by seeking

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
8/13
relevant particulars. The replies to such
representations, cannot furnish a fresh
cause of action or revive a stale or dead
claim.
11. When a direction is issued by a
court/tribunal to consider or deal with the
representation, usually the directee
(person directed) examines the matter on
merits, being under the impression that
failure to do so may amount to
disobedience. When an order is passed
considering and rejecting the claim or
representation, in compliance with
direction of the court or tribunal, such an
order does not revive the stale claim, nor
amount to some kind of
“acknowledgement of a jural
relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause
of action.
12. When a government servant abandons
service to take up alternative employment
or to attend to personal affairs, and does
not bother to send any letter seeking leave
or letter of resignation or letter of
voluntary retirement, and the records do
not show that he is treated as being in
service, he cannot after two decades,
represent that he should be taken back to
duty. Nor can such employee be treated as
having continued in service, thereby
deeming the entire period as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension. That
will be a travesty of justice.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
9/13
13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents
himself and suddenly appears after 20
years and demands that he should be
taken back and approaches the court, the
department naturally will not or may not
have any record relating to the employee
at that distance of time. In such cases,
when the employer fails to produce the
records of the enquiry and the order of
dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an
adverse inference against the employer
for not producing records, nor direct
reinstatement with back wages for 20
years, ignoring the cessation of service or
the lucrative alternative employment of
the employee. Misplaced sympathy in
such matters will encourage indiscipline,
lead to unjust enrichment of the employee
at fault and result in drain of public
exchequer. Many a time there is also no
application of mind as to the extent of
financial burden, as a result of a routine
order for back wages.
14. We are constrained to refer to the several
facets of the issue only to emphasise the
need for circumspection and care in
issuing directions for “consideration”. If
the representation on the face of it is
stale, or does not contain particulars to
show that it is regarding a live claim,
courts should desist from directing
“consideration” of such claims.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
10/13
15. The present case is a typical example of
“representation and relief”. The
petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after
the termination. A stage is reached when
no record is available regarding his
previous service. In the representations
which he makes in 2000, he claims that he
should be taken back to service. But on
rejection of the said representation by
order dated 9-4-2002, he filed a writ
petition claiming service benefits, by
referring the said order of rejection as the
cause of action. As noticed above, the
learned Single Judge examined the claim,
as if it was a live claim made in time,
finds fault with the respondents for not
producing material to show that
termination was preceded by due enquiry
and declares the termination as illegal.
But as the petitioner has already reached
the age of superannuation, the learned
Single Judge grants the relief of pension
with effect from 18-7-1982, by deeming
that he was retired from service on that
day. We fail to understand how the
learned Single Judge could declare a
termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ
petition filed in 2005. We fail to
understand how the learned Single Judge
could find fault with the Department of
Mines and Geology, for failing to prove
that a termination made in 1982, was
preceded by an enquiry in a proceedings

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
11/13
initiated after 22 years, when the
Department in which the petitioner had
worked had been wound up as long back
as in 1983 itself and the new Department
had no records of his service.”
18. In the case of R.K Zalpuri (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
follows :-
“20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to
a passage from City and Industrial
Development Corporation v. Dosu
Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others,
wherein this Court while dwelling upon
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, has expressed thus :-
“The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 is duty-bound to
consider whether: (a) adjudication of
writ petition involves any complex and
disputed questions of facts and whether
they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or
effective remedy for the resolution of
the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty
of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or
barred by any valid law; and host of
other factors.”
19. In the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
12/13
filing of representation does not extend the
period of limitation and the aggrieved
person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within a reasonable time.
Paragraph no.8 of the judgment reads as
follows :-
“8. As observed by this Court in a catena of
decisions, mere representation does not
extend the period of limitation and the
aggrieved person has to approach the
Court expeditiously and within a
reasonable time. If it is found that the writ
petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the
High Court should dismiss it at the
threshold and ought not to dispose of the
writ petition by relegating the writ
petitioner to file a representation and/or
directing the authority to decide the
representation, once it is found that the
original writ petitioner is guilty of delay
and laches. Such order shall not give an
opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter
contend that rejection of the
representation subsequently has given a
fresh cause of action.”
20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as referred to herein above,
the cause of action for the petitioner having
arisen for the first time in the year 1972
when as per his case he was not granted the
benefit of Teaching Cadre and atleast before
his retirement in the year 2002, the delay

Patna High Court CWJC No.13104 of 2026 dt.28-08-2026
13/13
and laches on the part of the writ petitioner
of at least 17 years cannot be explained with
the rejection of his representation. The Court
is of the opinion that the writ application
ought to have been dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches alone and the learned
Single Judge has erred in not taking into
consideration the submissions made on this
count on behalf of the appellant State of
Bihar. The Court finds merit in the appeal.”
10. Having considered the judicial pronouncements in
this regard, this Court finds that the claim filed by the petitioner, in
absence of any supporting document, cannot be granted and
further, the delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court has also not
been explained. Therefore, this Court has got no other option, but
to dismiss the present writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
12. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.09.2026
Transmission Date NA