Case Background
The petitioner in this case was a typist working in the district judiciary in East Champaran. He was appointed as a typist on 06.06.1974 and later retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2000.
By a letter dated 30.09.1978, issued under the signature of the Secretary, Law Department, the State Government decided that typists appointed in the district judiciary would be treated as Government employees for all practical purposes. Their service conditions were to be the same as those of State Government employees.
Later, the Law and Justice Department, Government of Bihar, issued Letter No. 1073 dated 02.03.1990, addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai. It stated that time-bound promotion would be applicable to typists from the date of their respective appointments, in view of the State Government’s Sankalp No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981.
The petitioner was granted his first time-bound promotion with effect from 01.04.1981. According to him, he became entitled to a second time-bound promotion from 15.06.1990.
After his retirement, the District and Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Muzaffarpur, sent Letter No. 404A dated 27.02.2006 to the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar. In this letter, it was informed that the petitioner had been granted first time-bound promotion with effect from 01.04.1981 and, in view of Sankalp No. 10770 dated 30.12.1981, he was entitled to a second time-bound promotion with effect from 15.06.1990.
Despite this background, the petitioner did not receive any second time-bound promotion or related monetary benefits. He continued with the pension and benefits given to him at the time of retirement in 2000.
Only in 2013, almost 13 years after retirement and several years after the 2006 letter, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19733 of 2013.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking three main reliefs. First, a direction (mandamus) to grant him a second time-bound promotion with effect from 1990 and pay all monetary benefits. Second, a direction to recalculate arrears from 1990, re-fix his pension based on the second time-bound promotion, and pay arrears with interest, like similarly situated employees who had been given notional time-bound promotion from 1990. Third, any other relief to which he was entitled in law.
On the preliminary side, counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition itself was not maintainable because the State of Bihar had not been impleaded as a party, although the relief, if granted, had to come from the State.
On merits, the petitioner’s counsel argued that another employee, claimed to be similarly situated, had obtained the benefit of second time-bound promotion. That employee had filed C.W.J.C. No. 7451 of 1999 (Yamuna Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.). That writ petition was disposed of on 08.10.2004 by a co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court, directing that a detailed representation be filed before the competent authority for redressal of grievance. Subsequently, by order dated 28.01.2005, Yamuna Prasad Verma was granted the benefit of a second time-bound promotion. On this basis, the petitioner claimed that he too should be granted the same relief.
On the other hand, counsel for the Patna High Court submitted that the petitioner had originally been appointed in 1965 as a daily wage employee and was later declared a Government employee by Memo No. 6476J dated 30.09.1978 issued by the Law Department, Government of Bihar. He was given his first time-bound promotion after completion of ten years of service. However, he superannuated on 30.04.2000 without having completed 25 years of service before retirement. Therefore, he was not granted the benefit of a second time-bound promotion.
Justice Ritesh Kumar first considered the conduct and delay on the part of the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2000. At the time of retirement, he accepted whatever service and pensionary benefits were given to him. He did not raise any objection or grievance before the authorities at that time.
The Court further observed that the record did not contain even a single document showing that the petitioner, either during service or after retirement, had approached any authority to press his claim for second time-bound promotion or higher pension. There was no representation or complaint on record.
The so-called similarly situated employee, Yamuna Prasad Verma, was granted the benefit of second time-bound promotion in 2005. Even then, the petitioner did not act. He “did not woke from his slumber” as the judgment records, and filed the writ petition only in 2013, many years later.
On these facts, the Court applied the principle that a person who sits on the fence and waits to see the outcome of others’ cases cannot later claim the same benefit after long delay. Such persons are described in judicial language as “fence sitters”. The Court held that the petitioner had not been vigilant in asserting his rights, either during his service or soon after retirement, and had thereby waived his right to be considered for similar relief.
To support this reasoning, the Court relied on several judgments.
First, it cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors., reported in 2015 (1) SCC 347. The Supreme Court had stated that, ordinarily, once relief is given to one employee, all identically placed persons should be treated alike. However, there is an important exception for cases of delay, laches, acquiescence, and fence sitters who wake up after long delay once others have already obtained relief from the Court.
The Supreme Court also clarified that another exception exists where a judgment is “in rem”, meaning it is intended to benefit all similarly placed persons, such as in policy matters. In such situations, authorities themselves must extend the benefit without being approached individually. But where the judgment is “in personam”, intended only for the parties before the Court, others who want the same benefit must approach the Court in time and avoid delay and laches.
Applying this principle, the Patna High Court found that the order in favour of Yamuna Prasad Verma was not a general policy decision but relief given to that individual. Therefore, the petitioner could not automatically claim the same benefit after so many years. He had to satisfy the Court that his own writ petition was free from delay and laches, which he failed to do.
Second, the Court referred to a recent judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1063 of 2024 (Chandra Madhav Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.), decided on 22.02.2024. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of that judgment, the Bench had declined similar relief to a petitioner who had also waited several years and approached the Court only after other litigants had succeeded. The Bench emphasised that delay and laches disentitle a party to discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution. A litigant who sits on the fence and comes to Court only after seeing a favourable decision for others should not be encouraged.
Third, the Court relied on its own recent decision in C.W.J.C. No. 17749 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), decided on 26.02.2026. There, in paragraph 19, the Court had again refused relief to a petitioner who had waited for more than five years from the arising of the cause of action, and approached the Court only about a year after a favourable Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022 (Prince & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others). The Court described such a litigant as a “fence sitter” who had not taken litigation at the appropriate time.
Finally, the Court cited another Supreme Court decision in S.S. Balu and Anr Vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in 2009 (2) SCC 479. In paragraph 17 of that case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that “delay defeats equity”. It held that when a writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, relief may be denied on the ground of delay and laches, even if that person is similarly situated to others who obtained the benefit of a judgment. The Supreme Court also referred to NDMC v. Pan Singh, where writ petitions filed after 17 years were not entertained on similar grounds.
After examining all these authorities, Justice Ritesh Kumar concluded that the petitioner’s case clearly fell within the category of delayed and stale claims. He had remained silent for many years, accepted his retirement benefits, and only moved the Court after seeing that another employee had succeeded earlier.
On this reasoning, the Court held that there was no merit in the writ petition. It dismissed the petition and also disposed of any pending applications. No relief was granted in respect of second time-bound promotion, pension re-fixation, or arrears.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is especially important for retired government and court employees who wish to challenge service benefits, promotions, or pension calculations. It shows that delay can be fatal to such claims.
The Patna High Court made it clear that a person cannot sleep over his rights for years and then ask the Court to grant relief simply because another employee in a similar position earlier got a favourable order. Even if two employees have the same service history, one who comes promptly and fights his case may get relief, while the other, who waits too long, may get nothing.
The decision reinforces that writ remedies under Article 226 are discretionary and equitable. Courts expect employees to be vigilant. If someone accepts their retirement benefits without protest and does not even submit a representation for many years, the Court is unlikely to interfere later.
For workers in Bihar and elsewhere, especially those in lower posts such as typists or clerks, this judgment underlines a practical lesson: if you believe you are entitled to any service benefit, such as time-bound promotion or higher pension, you should raise your grievance in writing at the earliest and, if necessary, approach the Court without unnecessary delay.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a retired typist of the district judiciary was entitled to a second time-bound promotion from 1990, with refixation of pension and arrears, on the ground that another similarly situated employee had been given such benefit.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the petitioner had approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay, having neither raised any grievance during service nor soon after retirement. As a “fence sitter” who woke up only after others received relief, he was not entitled to similar benefits. - Issue: Whether the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated employees automatically entitles all such employees to relief granted in another individual’s case.
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that while similarly placed persons are normally to be treated alike, this is subject to the exception of delay, laches and acquiescence. Only where a judgment is intended to operate in rem or lays down a general policy are authorities bound to extend benefits to all without fresh litigation.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors., 2015 (1) SCC 347.
- C.W.J.C. No. 1063 of 2024, Chandra Madhav Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., judgment dated 22.02.2024 (Patna High Court).
- C.W.J.C. No. 17749 of 2023, Amit Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., judgment dated 26.02.2026 (Patna High Court).
- S.S. Balu and Anr Vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2009 (2) SCC 479.
- NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398 (as quoted in S.S. Balu).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19733 of 2013
Case Title: Harishchandra Singh Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Its Registrar (Establishment) and Ors.
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 194
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ritesh Kumar
Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate; Mr. Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate.
- For the Patna High Court: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
- For the respondents: Mr. Binodanand Mishra.
- For Accountant General, Bihar: Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Visesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus for second time-bound promotion, refixation of pension and arrears.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
