JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 9842 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2018:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 150 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 150 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

6. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.

I.A. No. 239 of 2019 in L.P.A. No. 479 of 2018:

7. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 193 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

8. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.

9. Heard the parties.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

11. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 193 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

12. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage for final disposal.

I.A. No. 5902 of 2020 in L.P.A. No. 380 of 2018:

13. The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking a direction to the Office to accept the vakalatnama which is sought to be filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the respondent-writ petitioner no. 1, namely, Bishnu Prasad Singh, who died in course of pendency of the writ petition and the substitution had been allowed to be substituted through his legal heirs vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed in I.A. No. 1366 of 2013 in W.P. (S) No. 6329 of 2007.

14. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted in course of argument that the vakalatnama has been filed alongwith the instant interlocutory application and the same has been sought to be accepted.

15. There is no objection on behalf of the State if the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application will be allowed.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the instant interlocutory application and taking into consideration the order dated 06.08.2013 passed in passed in I.A. No. 1366 of 2013 in W.P. (S) No. 6329 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitioner no. 1, namely, Bishnu Prasad Singh had been directed to be substituted through his legal heirs by deleting the name of the writ petitioner no. 1, namely, Bishu Prasad Singh.

17. This Court, considering the aforesaid submissions, hereby directs the Office to carry out the necessary correction in the cause title instant memo of appeal in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed in passed in I.A. No. 1366 of 2013 in W.P. (S) No. 6329 of 2007.

18. In consequence thereof, the vakalatnama so filed on behalf of the legal heirs as appended to the instant interlocutory application is directed to be accepted.

19. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 380 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 479 of 2018:

20. Both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties.

21. These intra court appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the orders/judgments dated 19.01.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6329 of 2007 and in W.P. (S) No. 4168 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the orders dated 25.08.2004 and 26.06.2006 in W.P. (S) No. 6329 of 2007 and orders dated 07.03.2008; 10.06.2008 and; the letter dated 27.09.2007 in W.P. (S) No. 4168 of 2008 have been quashed by treating the writ petitioners entitled for upgradation in pay scale