- (1.) This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 151 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.2154 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 151 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A.No.112 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6190 of 2011, which has been allowed setting aside the order dated 24.08.2011, by which, the period of service of writ petitioner from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 has been denied to be regularised.
(2.) The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated herein for consideration of the lis reads as hereunder:- The writ petitioner was appointed vide notification dated 02.07.1999 on the post of Homeopathic Doctor by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The Clause-2 of the said notification directs the writ petitioner to give joining at the headquarters in the directorate within 15 days from the issuance of the said notification. According to the writ petitioner, she has joined the directorate on 05.07.1999 but was kept waiting for posting and was posted on 29.12.1999 only. The writ petitioner thereafter has been posted at Chatra. The writ petitioner, therefore, claims that the period i.e., from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the period when she remained in the directorate, waiting for her posting, has not been regularised and therefore, made representation for its regularisation but the grievance having not been redressed, she has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010, praying for regularisation of the aforesaid period of her service. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.2010, directing the authority to consider the matter of the writ petitioner and the objection raised by the State and thereafter, the authority has came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner will be entitled to salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 as the writ petitioner on her appointment gave her joining pursuant to an order at the Headquarter and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be said to have not joined her duty on 05.07.1999 and hence, it has not been left open for the State to say that the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when she gave her joining pursuant to the order of posting. According to the writ petitioner in pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2010, the respondents-authorities have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2011 negating the claim of the writ petitioner for regularising her service from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the same has been assailed before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6190 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2017, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has assailed the aforesaid order inter-alia on the ground that the decision has been taken by the authority as on 24.08.2011, strictly in terms of the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code but the same has been quashed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- and hence, the learned Single Judge has committed error in quashing the order along with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, hence, the same is not sustainable.;