2025:JHHC:38194 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7507 of 2025 ---- Amresh Kumar Niraj, Son of Late Rambilash Sharma, Resident of Flat No. F- 406, Sumitra Apartment, Near Don Bosco School, Hesag, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 5. Under Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 6. Ashok Kumar, Son of Late Ramji Singh, Resident of Garden Valley Apt., Devi Mandap Road, Hesag, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi. 7. Madhukant Tripathi, Son of Lt. Balram Tripathi, Resident of Village-Latma Bazar (near DAV School), Singhmore, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi. 8. Awadhesh Kumar Jayasawal, Son of Jagarnath Prasad Jayaswal, Resident of 4-B, Shanti Apartment, Lower Hatia, P.O.-Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi. 9. Brij Lala Prasad, Son of Ram Yatna Prasad Singh, Resident of Sumanti Bhawan (PHC), Village-Chandpur Bela Pani Tanki, Pucca Kuan, P.O.- Mithapur, P.S.-Jakkanpur, District-Patna, Bihar-800001. ...Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Keshav, AAG-V ---- 05 / 17 .1 2 .2025 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For direction upon the respondent no. 3 to grant promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary w.e.f. 25.12.2020 when juniors in seniority list have been granted promotion. (ii) For further direction to respondent no. 3 to grant promotion to the post of Joint Secretary on the due date i.e. on 25.12.2021 with all consequential benefits. (iii) For direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the representations filed by the petitioner on 12.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 and to proceed to grant retrospective promotion on the due date of the petitioner in the light of promotion granted to the juniors in the seniority list. (iv) For direction to respondent no. 2 to 4 to consider the promotion of the petitioner of the higher post i.e. Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary on due date in view of Jharkhand Secretariat Rules, 2010. (v) For direction upon the respondent concerned to shift the effective date of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary from the respective date on which juniors i.e. private respondents have been promoted when criteria for promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit as per Rule, 2010. vi. For direction to the respondents to grant actual and financial benefits to the post of Deputy Secretary and joint Secretary along with other consequential benefit as per seniority list dated 01.07.2011.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working in the post of Under Secretary in the office of Jharkhand State Information Commission was granted amended Assure Career Progression by office order dated 13.04.2016 after completion of 20 years of service. On 01.07.2011 the final seniority list of Officers and Assistants of the Jharkhand Secretariat Service was published by the Deputy Secretary and duly circulated to all concerned authorities. In the said final list, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 612, whereas the private respondents were placed at Sl. Nos. 613, 693, 750 and 828. However, the promotion to all the posts was stayed by the State Government vide letter dated 24.12.2020. The stay order was challenged in writ application being W.P.S. No. 3843/2021, wherein the stay order was quashed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.01.2022 with a direction upon the authorities to consider the case of the employees for promotion. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification dated 30.09.2022 for promotion to the eligible Under Secretary Officer to the post of Deputy Secretary wherein the petitioner’s name was in serial no. 7. The State Government by resolution dated 10.04.2023 decided that officers who have retired between 24.12.2020 to 10.04.2023 and were otherwise eligible would be granted retrospective promotion with all consequential financial benefits. Further, vide notification dated 17.08.2023, the state granted promotion to the Respondent No. 6 to 9 having serial no. 613,693,750 and 828 respectively in the gradation list. On 12.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 respectively, the petitioner made representations before respondent no. 3 for grant of retrospective promotion from the date his junior in seniority list had been granted promotion with all financial and consequential benefits but the same has not been considered. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Jharkhand Secretariat Service Rule, 2010, an officer who has been working on the post of Under Secretary or equivalent post falling under Grade-I shall be promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary or equivalent post 2. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The learned counsel submits that the promotion granted to respondent no. 6 to 9 has been given without considering the seniority in the gradation list as the petitioner was at serial no. 612 in the gradation list. The learned counsel submits that as per resolution dated 24.10.2014, the petitioner is entitled to financial benefits as Deputy Secretary w.e.f. 25.12.2020 and as Joint Secretary w.e.f. 25.12.2021, upon completion of one year. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have acted against the principle of “equals cannot be treated as unequal”. 5. There is no counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner’s claim for promotion is belated as he has made representations after almost a year of grant of promotion to the juniors. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has filed this instant writ petition after lapse of two years and the same cannot be considered for grant of retrospective promotion. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the State granted promotion to Respondent No. 6 to 9 on 17.08.2023 and the petitioner made representations before respondent no. 3 for grant of retrospective promotion on 12.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 respectively. The petitioner waited for nearly 1 year to make claim for the promotion that his juniors were granted. Further the petitioner has provided no reason for making such delay in making such representation. Also, after almost 2 years of promotion to the juniors, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court. This clearly shows that the petitioner has slept over his rights and later interfered to unsettle the settled positions. Such conduct is marked as lack of diligence and cannot entitle the person with equitable relief under Article 226. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152 has held as under: “2. ... A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then 3. approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal.” In another ruling judgment in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 215, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.” 8. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case that the petitioner has made a delayed claim, I find no merit in this writ petition. 9. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. 17th December, 2025 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 20.12.2025 4.