2025:JHHC:36801 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6934 of 2025 ------ Krishna Bihari Ram, S/o Late Ram Nandan Ram, R/o M.I.G.-B-112, Harmu Housing Colony, near Bada Maidan, Harmu Chowk, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Under Secretary, Department of Road Construction, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III ------ 02/ 08.12.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent no.4 & 5 to shift back the date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer from 01.05.2018 to 30.03.1996 along with actual and financial benefits as well as all consequential benefits, as the junior to the petitioner being 13 daily wage Junior Engineers have been treated to be Assistant Engineer (promotee) on and from 30.03.1996 and have been placed in the 2025:JHHC:36801 2 seniority list dated 05.05.2015 at serial number 23 to 61 and the petitioner being senior to them, finds place at serial number 623 of the said seniority list which is out and out illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of Article 14. b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner to the next higher post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 23.11.2009 (i.e. the date on which his juniors have been granted promotion) with all consequential benefits. c) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank of Superintending Engineer, with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 03.02.2016 in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000/-, Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-, which shall be further fixed in the revised pay structure of 7th Pay Revision accepted by the State of Jharkhand. d) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-arrange the inter-se seniority list dated 05.05.2015 of the Assistant Engineers to the extent that juniors to the petitioner have been placed at Serial number 23 to 61 and the petitioner being senior to them finds place at serial number 623, which is contrary to the findings as contained in judgment dated 28.09.2015 passed in L.P.A. No.106 of 2015.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying to shift back his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from 01.05.2018 to 30.03.1996, as his juniors have been promoted from that date. 2025:JHHC:36801 3 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, has held that if supersession is not challenged within six months to one year, the same should not be entertained by the High Court. It is necessary to quote relevant part of para-2 of the said judgment, which is as follows:- “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 approach the Court to put forward stale claims and trye 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.” 5. In this case, the petitioner has already superannuated from service on 31.01.2018. Not only he has approached this Court after seven years from his superannuation but after a huge delay from the actual date of his promotion, which was granted to him. The petitioner slept for this entire period. The contention of the petitioner with respect to accrual of right of the petitioner only in the year 2024, cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid fact. Thus, in 2025:JHHC:36801 4 my opinion, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as quoted above absolutely fits in the facts of this case. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 08th December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 11.12.2025