Heard Mr. Nitya Nand, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jay Prakash Sharma, learned Assistant Counsel to G.P.-XI for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Development Department, Deoghar, whereby he had rejected the petitioner’s claim for second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1993.

3. From the pleadings of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner joined his service as Fuse Man in Water Resources Department pursuant to his appointment to the post in the office of the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division Koshi Project, Birpur in the year 1965. He was promoted to the post of Electrician Grade-2 on 1.121973. It has been asserted in the writ petition that after more than 12 years of his service on the post of Electrician, he was granted first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 vide an order dated 6.1.1994. His grievance is that after completion of 12 years from the effective date of first time bound promotion he became entitled for second time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1993. The time bound promotion was however, not given to him and in spite of repeated representations he was made to retire after attaining the age of his superannuation on 31.12.1999.

4. It has further been alleged that as he was not paid his all retiral benefits which he was entitled to even after retirement, he had to approach this Court by filing CWJC No. 6754 of 2001 for a direction to the respondents to pay all the retiral dues and also to grant second time bound promotion with further consequential reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.5.2001 in terms of general direction of this Court issued in the case of Most. Rukmini Devi Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1996(2) PLJR 348. By virtue of the said order the petitioner was required to file his claim in detail before the Authority concerned, which was required to be dealt with by the respondents in accordance with the general direction given in the case of Most. Rukmini Devi (supra). In the opening sentence of the order of this Court itself, it has been mentioned that the general direction of this Court with respect to the claim relating to post retiral dues. Pursuant to the said order dated 18.5.2001 of this Court the petitioner represented before the concerned respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the retiral dues was paid to the petitioner, his claim for second time bound promotion was refused vide order dated 5.11.2002 which is under challenge in the present writ application. Further plea of the petitioner is that similarly circumstanced Ajejur Rahman has been granted the benefit of second time bound promotion in the year 2002 itself. It has further been asserted that on 11.6.2003 petitioner had submitted an application before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Departmenta, Patna stating all the facts to support his claim for second time bound promotion but the same has not been considered so far.

5. I don’t intend to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioner at this stage as in my view, the writ petition cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay of several years in approaching this Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as the Supreme Court that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation.

6. The Supreme Court in case of S.S. Balu Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479 categorically held that delay defeats equity and where a petitioner approaches the Court after a long delay, relief prayed for may be denied on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of fact that he is similarly situated to other candidates who obtained benefit of a judgment.

7. Reference may be made to pa