- (1.) THIS is a petition for condpning the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. This is opposed. But having heard both sides, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. This petition is, therefore, allowed. L.P.A. No. 227 of 2003
(2.) WHEN the matter came up for admission, Respondent No. 1, the contesting respondent, had appeared. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 was also present. With the consent of the parties, both sides were heard and this appeal is being disposed of finally by this judgment. The first respondent was working on daily wages from 6.5.1987. That appointment was terminated. The first respondent whereupon filed C.W.J.C. No. 1297 of 1990 (R) before this Court. This Court found that the original appointment was illegal and without jurisdiction, since the authority, who had made the appointment, was not competent to do so. Thus the writ petition filed by the first respondent was found to be without merit and the first respondent was found to have no legal right to obtain any relief. But considering the circumstances available in the case, it was observed that if the first respondent filed a representation before the Director of Industries bringing to his notice the circumstances in which the order of appointment was passed and the other relevant facts, the matter of approval of appointment of the first respondent or for issuing a fresh order of her appointment may be considered by the Director of Industries expeditiously. The first respondent was not given any relief on the basis of her representation. She, therefore, again approached the Patna High Court with C.W.J.C. No. 3089 of 1997 (R). The Court proceeding on the basis that the case of the first respondent was covered by an earlier decision rendered by the Court, issued the following direction: '' In this case of the aforesaid decision this writ application is allowed and the concerned respondent/respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to give same treatment to the petitioner as was given to the similar situated persons and issue fresh letter of appointment. The entire formalities shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." (Emphasis supplied.) Pursuant to this direction, the first respondent was given a letter of appointment, Annexure -2, whereunder the Director of Industries passed an order to the effect that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 16.11.1988 appointing the respondent was being approved. This order was passed on 9.7.1999.
(3.) THE first respondent claimed that she was entitled to salary from 17.4.1990, the day next after the order of termination dated 16.4.1990 was passed originally and which was not set aside by the earlier Division Bench. She approached this Court with a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 3709 of 2001, claiming the issue of a direction for payment of her salary for the period from 17.4.1990 to 12.8.1999. This Court without going into the merits, remitted the matter to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Lohardaga, to decide the issue within a period of two months and to pay the admitted dues, if found payable, within two month from the date of such decision. On 8.10.2001, the first respondent was informed by Annexure -10 to the writ petition, that she was appointed only by an order dated 9.7.1999 and it was not a case where appointment was made on 17.4.1990 and in the order of appointment there was no direction to pay her any salary for the period claimed by her and in that context, she was not entitled to any salary prior to he fresh appointment and joining the service on 13.8.1999. Being aggrieved by this communication, the first respondent approached this Court with the present writ petition, W.P. (S) No. 3389 of 2002.;