D.N. Patel, J.

C.M.P. No. 62 of 2015

1. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been preferred for restoration of L.P.A. No. 495 of 2014, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 13th February, 2015 for want of appearance from the side of the appellant.

2. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in this petition, there are reasonable grounds for recalling the order dated 13th February, 2015 and therefore, I recall the order dated 13th February, 2015 and L.P.A. No. 495 of 2014 is restored to its original file with the same number.

3. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 495 of 2014

4. The Letters Patent Appeal is also before us for its final hearing with the consent of the parties.

I.A. No. 6447 of 2014

5. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 16 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Having heard counsel for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 4 to 8, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

7. In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6447 of 2014 is allowed and disposed of.

8. Counsel appearing for both sides submitted that in another similarly situated matter, i.e. and other allied matters, final orders have been passed and therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may also be finally decided by this court.

9. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5143 of 2014, which was disposed of on 7th October, 2014 whereby, the writ petition preferred by present respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) was allowed and she was granted leave encashment in the Government aided minority high school. Respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) retired on 30th November, 2010 as Headmistress of St.Ann's Girls High School, Chainpur, Gumla. Respondent no. 1 was given leave encashment allowances on the basis of several rules and regulations including on the basis of Circular bearing no. 1775 dated 30th August, 1980 and Circular bearing no. 237 dated 20th February, 1990.

10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that nothing new has been argued out by the learned counsel for the appellants. Very old tunes are being repeated by these appellants. Same is the orchestra and the same are the tunes which has already been sung before the other Division Bench in CWJC No. 2162 of 1999(R) decided vide order dated 20th August, 2002. Against this judgment, Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 295 of 2004 was preferred by the State of Jharkhand which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6th January, 2006, against which, S.L.P. was preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India bearing CC No. 7881/2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 30th October, 2006. This is one round of litigation, but, this was not enough for the State of Jharkhand. Similar error has been committed by the State of Jharkhand i.e. again the leave encashment was not paid to the similarly situated petitioner. This has given birth to another round of litigation.

11. Thus, one round of litigation has not awakened the senses of the Government. There is a National Litigation Policy with certain restrictions adopted by the State also. The State Litigation Policy also shows that if similarly situated matters are decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then it must be followed by the State so as to avoid multifarious litigations, but, as usual, similar error has been again committed by the State i.e. nonpayment of the leave encashment amount to the retired teacher of Government aided minority school which is in question and th