- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -State of Jharkhand against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 574/08* which is time barred by 226 days for which the explanation which has been offered by the appellant -State is a usual one which is to the effect that the file travelled from one department to the other which hardly inspires confidence. In spite of this huge and unexplained delay, we permitted the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal merely to obviate any miscarriage of justice on merit to the appellant -State. But, on hearing the counsel for the appellant, we do not find any sub -stance on merit also as the writ petition had been allowed by the learned Single Judge who had been denied payment of pension and gratuity although such payment had been made to similarly situated employees. The writ petition was allowed relying upon the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of Bhuneshwar Mahto against which L.P.A. No. 515/04 had been preferred by the respondent -State which was dismissed and the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
(2.) SINCE the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Bench which was confirmed up to the Supreme Court after which pensionary benefit and gratuity was ordered to be paid to the petitioner/respondent herein, obviously the State has no reason to prefer an appeal and perhaps that was the reason that appeal was not preferred for a period of 226 days. Thereafter, what prompted the appellant -State to prefer an appeal after a huge delay of 226 days is not clear. But, even we were to ignore the delay, the appeal has no substance on merit which is reflected from the facts stated hereinbefore. The appeal thus has no substance and hence it is dismissed on merit as also on the ground of delay.;