2025:JHHC:29729 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.5359 of 2025 ----- Sanat Kumar Mahato @ Ratan Mahto, son of late Parmanand Mahto, resident of village Chatro, PO Kokpara, PS Dhalbhumgarh, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur 3.The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 4.The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, PO and PS Sakchi, District East Singhbhum … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC-I …...... 06 /24.09.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to grant him notional promotion in the light of office order dated 15.02.2024 contained in Memo No. 513 issued by the respondent no. 4 wherein it has been directed that pursuant to letter No. 770 dated 05.10.2023 and letter No. 886 dated 14.11.2023 a list has to be prepared for grant of promotion to the primary teachers in Grade-IV and Grade-VII. 3. Admittedly the petitioner has been granted promotion in Grade-III. It is also admitted that the petitioner had taken voluntarily retirement on 30.10.2014. The petitioner after 9 years is approaching this Court for grant of promotion to Grade-VII. Further the letter which the petitioner is relying upon was issued after superannuation of the petitioner. If at all the petitioner was entitled for any promotion the same was in the year 2014 i.e. before his superannuation. The petitioner did not claim the same when he was in service rather he slept for more than 10 years. Thereafter he filed 2025:JHHC:29729 2 this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 has referred to the judgment in “State of T.N. vs. Seshachalam” reported in (2007) 10 SCC 137 and held as under: “23. In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 475] , this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: (SCC p. 145, para 16) “16. … filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.”” 5. Thus, on the ground of delay and latches, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari” (supra) and also the ground that the letter which the petitioner is relying is issued after his superannuation, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 6. This writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 24.09.2025 Tanuj/CP-2