The importance of maintaining accurate records of employment and the reliance on documentary evidence to establish facts.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.10572 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 76 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, 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 76 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 10572 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.768 of 2019

5. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by interfering with the order dated 02.02.2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner whereunder the respondents have changed the date of joining of the writ petitioner from 28.05.1985 to 01.08.1993 and subsequently reduced the pay scale of the petitioner.

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

It is the case of the writ petitioner that in pursuance of advertisement, the writ petitioner had applied for the Grade-III post against the vacancies for different posts notified by Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro.

Vide letter dated 05.02.1983, the writ petitioner was called for interview by the Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner appeared in the interview and was selected. The name of the writ petitioner was listed at top of the list under Grade-III category. The petitioner was only candidate in SC category in the list. On 04.05.1985, a separate office order was issued with respect to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts under the signature of Deputy Registrar of the University and on its perusal, it transpires that the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 1. The petitioner was directed to report to the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro latest by the end of 25.05.1985. Accordingly, the writ petitioner joined the post on 28.05.1985. The service book of the petitioner was opened, relevant portion of the service book is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The date of joining of the writ petitioner is reflected in the service book as 28.05.1985. But, for pay fixation in pursuance to the recommendation of the 5th Pay revision, a chart has been issued by the Vinoba Bhave University in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 19 wherein the date of joining has been referred as 01.08.1993.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, filed several representations before the Principal Bokaro Steel City College. The Principal, Bokaro Steel City College vide its letter dated 01.07.2005 requested the member Secretary, Time Bound Promotion Committee that the date of joining of the petitioner is 28.05.1985. Again the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College by letter dated 17.01.2007 requested the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University mentioning the fact that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 28.05.1985 but incorrectly it has been shown in the chart as 01.08.1993.

The grievance having not been redressed, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2013.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the date of joining mentioned in the different documents, has allowed the writ petition while quashing the order dated 02.02.2012 against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Vinoba Bhave University.

7. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in passing the impugned order since the impugned order is without consideration of the fact that the post to which the writ petitioner was appointed, was not sanctione