Ravi Ranjan,j. - (1.) The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 191 days in filing the appeal. The reason has been shown causing delay in filing the appeal, is due to non-communication of instruction from the writ petitioners as also the time consumed in arranging the required amount in filing the appeal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that if the aforesaid reason will not be considered by condoning the delay, the appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury and the issue which has been agitated in the instant appeal will remain un-adjudicated. Learned counsel for the State has seriously opposed the ground shown in the interlocutory application and prayed to dismiss it. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the reason shown in the interlocutory application as also taking into consideration the fact that the issue which has been agitated by the appellants will remain unanswered, if the appeal would be dismissed on limitation. Therefore, this Court deem it fit and proper to condone the delay, so that the issue agitated by the appellants may be decided on merit. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal, is condoned. I.A.No.3104 of 2019 is allowed. L.P.A. No.725 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4369 of 2014 by invoking the jurisdiction as conferred to this Court under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent.
(2.) The brief facts of this case which required to be enumerated herein before appreciating the argument as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge which reads hereunder as:- The father of the appellant no.1 and husband of the appellant no.2 namely late Uma Shankar Prasad who was the 4th Grade employee posted in the Office of Regional Industries Directorate, Hazaribagh and while he was in service, he became traceless in the year 1994. Late Uma Shankar Prasad was appointed on 21.11.1987 in the Directorate of Industries of the undivided State of Bihar and joined his service on 25.11.1987. Late Uma Shankar Prasad while discharging his duty, proceeded on earned leave from 03.02.1994 to 03.03.1994 and subsequently filed application for extension of his leave up to 31.05.1994. Thereafter, he became traceless and to that effect, a notice in the daily newspaper has been published as on 09.12.1999. Thereafter, again late Uma Shankar Prasad after completion of leave, proceeded to join the post but not reached at the place of posting and became traceless. In consequence thereof, a police report being Sanha No.493 dated 15.05.2000 was lodged in Sultanganj Police Station, Patna (Bihar) reporting therein that the father of the appellant no.1 and husband of the appellant no.2 has become traceless since 1994, to that effect, a report was sent vide DR-1606/2006 dated 08.08.2006 prepared by Sultanganj Police Station to the Deputy Director Industries, Hazaribagh. In the meanwhile, period of 7 years has also expired and as such, declaration has been sought for to treat the father of the appellant no.1 and husband of the appellant no.2 as dead in view of the provision of Section 108 of the Evidence Act. Late Uma Shankar Prasad has attained the age of normal superannuation on 31.07.2004. The appellant no.2 had preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No.5132 of 2012 which was allowed vide order dated 08.10.2012 directing the respondents to treat the husband of the appellant no.2 a missing employee as dead and ensure payment of the pension and other retiral benefits within a period of six months from the date of passing of the order and in consequent thereto, retiral benefits have been paid. Further the benefit of family pension has already been extended in favour of the appellant no.2. The appellant no.1, thereafter has filed application for appointment on compassionate ground before the respondents but the same was rejected vide decision as contained in letter no.481 dated 17.02.2014 along with letter no.13 dated 11.03.2014.
(3.) The petitioner has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4369 of 2014 for quashing the decision as contained in order/letter no.481 dated 17.02.2014 by raising the entire factual aspects as also placing reliance upon the order passed by this Court (learned Single Judge) rendered in the case of 'Shanti Devi and Another Vrs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.' (W.P.(S) No.2503 of 2013), wherein, according to the appellants on the similar facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petition was allowed with a direction upon the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground. It has been contended further that order in another case passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3956 of 2011, the direction has been passed on the similar nature of the case for appointment on compassionate ground but in the present case the learned Single Judge without considering these two orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, has rejected the writ petition on the ground that since the date of missing of period of 24 years has already lapsed and hence, no direction for appointment on compassionate ground has been issued. ;