Ajit Singh, J.

Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. N Sarma learned standing counsel. Elementary Education for the applicants. Mr. RC Saikia and Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on admission.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 475 days in filing writ appeal against the order dated 6.1.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed non-applicant's WP(C) No.2738 of 2010.

2. The case of non-applicant was that vide order dated 4.12.1999 she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 3130-6600/- per month plus other allowances as admissible which was also paid to her but suddenly payment of salary to her was stopped with effect from October, 2007. The learned Single Judge after hearing the non-applicant and the applicants by a detailed order dated 6.1.2015 directed the applicants to pay the current salary of the non-applicant in the pay scale of 3130-6600 as per revised pay with other admissible allowances as well as all her salary arrears with effect from October. 2007.

3. As there is delay of 475 days in filing the writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. it is to be seen whether there is "sufficient cause" for condonation of such a huge delay. I he application for condonation of delay is 11 led by the applicants along with a.i affidavit of Shri Preetom Saikia, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam. Elementary (Education) Department, Dispur. The relevant paragraphs 4 to 12 of the application read as under:

"4. That pursuant to the passing of the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 the Director, Education (Elementary) Department had requested the Senior Standing Counsel to file a review petition before the Hon'ble Court for review of the order dated 06.01.2015 passed in W. P( C) No.2738 of 2010.

5 That on 24.09.2015 a decision was taken to direct the Director of Elementary Education to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Court and submit compliance report to the Government. The Director, Education Elementary Department vide communications dated 07.09.2015 and 07.10.2015 had informed that the opposite party had never joined in the school in the year 1999 and was transferred out of the BTAD area in the year 2000 and that the Director had pleaded for filing of a review of the order dated 06.01.2015. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded by the Joint Secretary for obtaining views of the Senior Standing Counsel on 11.01.2016.

6. That the file was endorsed to the Senior Standing Counsel on 11.01.2016, however, due to unfortunate demise in the family of the Senior Standing Counsel the matter was not attended to immediately. By a letter dated 24.02.2016, the Director had again informed the deponent that no report on the proposal for review had been received by his office and thus the matter was again taken up with the Senior Standing Counsel.

7. That the deponent begs to state that as per the report and records maintained in the department, the opposite party was appointed illegally and she never joined in the school where she claims to have been appointed and her name did not figure in the selection list. Her transfer to the general area was also illegal and having received her salary from January to July, 2006 and from June 2007 to September, 2007 she did not receive any salary either prior to the said period or after September, 2007.

8. That the facts stated in the preceding paragraph was intimated to the Senior Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, and the Senior Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department after perusing the records had offered his views that the department may file a writ appeal against the said impugned order and returned the concerned file to the office of the appellants.

9. That after obtaining the views from the office of the Senior Standing Counsel the matter of filing a writ appeal against the impugned Judgment and order da