- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3335/02 by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition but without cost holding therein that the petitioner/respondent herein had been illegally denied the benefit of the promotional post and they were entitled to claim the arrears of salary for the period from 1st January, 1996 to 17th December, 1996 amounting to Rs. 65,250/ -. However, the said amount had already been availed by the respondent herein by way of salary on the promotional post but the appellant -State had recovered that amount from the pensionary benefit of the respondent on the ground that the order of promotion was notional in nature.
(2.) IN the first place, the appellant State did not prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment and order for a period of 109 days and hence an application for condonation of delay has been filed but the reasons assigned for delay is one of those usual reasons which the appellant -State is in the habit of taking in every matter which hardly inspires confidence. In spite of this, we permitted the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal merely in the interest of justice to the affected party. But, having heard the matter, we find no substance even on the merit of the appeal. The respondents had availed the salary of the promotional post which was later recovered by deducting the amount of Rs. 65,250/ - from the pensionary benefit of the respondent which was contrary to the judgment rendered in the case of Laxman Prasad Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2007(4) JLJR 459. Besides this, the respondent had availed the amount of Rs. 65,250/ - by way of arrears of salary for the period between 1st January, 1996 to 17th December, 1996 and the learned Single Judge had been pleased to hold that the petitioner/respondent herein was entitled to the salary for the period as the appellant -State itself had issued an order of notional promotion in favour of the respondent from 1st January, 1996.
(3.) THUS , the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in observing that the petitioner/respondent herein is entitled to claim the arrears for the period between 1st January, 1996 to 17th December, 1996 which had been illegally denied to him. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant -State that only notional benefits has been given to the respondent herein for the aforesaid period and salary for the same was allowed to be availed by the respondent only due to mistake, was rightly brushed aside by the learned Single Judge.;