JUDGMENT :

[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No. 6200 of 2019

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 175 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 175 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. No. 6200 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.445 of 2019

4. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4477 of 2011 by which, while allowing the writ petition, the order as contained in Memo dated 08.08.2012 has been quashed and set aside and the respondents have been directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for his promotion as also for grant of the pay scale applicable to his post in the Circle Cadre and to release all such payments and the arrears thereof in the light of the decision rendered in W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2002. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The writ petitioner, although was recommended for appointment in the pay of Rs.240-396/- but he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. The writ petitioner made representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand on 27.12.2002 for consideration of his case in the scale of Rs.240-396/- with effect from 13.09.1980. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest forwarded his representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum- Chairman, (High Level Coordinating Committee) vide his letter dated 13.05.2003 for deciding his real position. Thereafter, a committee was constituted by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 14.10.2003 for consideration of writ petitioner’s representation under the Chairmanship of Regional Chief conservator of Forests, Ranchi. The committee, in its meeting dated 17.04.2005, considered the case of the writ petitioner and recommended for grant of pay scale of Rs.240-396/- to the writ petitioner, as would appear from letter dated 25.06.2006 (annexure-5 to the writ petition). But the aforesaid benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 240-396/- was not granted in favour of the writ petitioner even in spite of the aforesaid recommendation made by the committee.

The writ petitioner raised objection. His objection was considered and was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2012 on the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 13.09.1980 on his own wish and it is only after lapse of 22 years objection application has been filed questioning his appointment in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- and hence, on the ground of delay, the aforesaid application was rejected.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 08.08.2012, approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising the plea that actually his case was recommended for appointment in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but without seeking any willingness/option, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-.

The further plea was taken that the Department itself considered the appointment of the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- to be incorrect and, therefore, on the representation of the writ petitioner, a committee was constitu