- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the Union of India alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which is time barred by 178 days. The delay has been explained by adopting one of those hackneyed reasons to the effect that the file travelled from one department to the other on account of procedural hassle which hardly inspires confidence in the reason assigned. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent -petitioner submitted that the delay caused by the appellant is not bona fide as the appellants did not care to file the appeal in time and acquiesced with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and only when the respondent filed a petition for contempt alleging non -implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court with a delay of 178 days. He has, therefore, submitted that the lay is not bona fide but is intentional and hence not fit to be condoned. Arun Choudhury Versus State Of Jharkhand
(2.) HOWEVER , in spite of the huge delay, we permitted the counsel for the appellants to address us on the merit of the matter and on hearing him, we could notice that the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order, has been pleased to allow the writ petition directing the respondents/appellants herein to pay the arrears of salary from 5.2.2000 to 5.11.2002 during which the respondent/petitioner was suffering the order of dismissal. However, the order of dismissal was finally set aside by the Single Bench of this Court and the respondent although was reinstated in service an order was passed against him to the effect that since his order of dismissal was set aside on technical ground, the arrears of salary for the intervening period during which he was out of service, would not be paid to him. The respondent/petitioner, therefore, filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1868/2003* out of which this appeal arises wherein he had sought a direction to the respondents/appellants herein to pay him the arrears of salary. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge which is now under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Union of India submitted that the arrears of salary is not fit to be paid to the respondent as he cannot be allowed to claim wages for the period during which he had not discharged duty.;