Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Indra Kumar Mishra & Ors on 19 December, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1673 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22339 of 2013
======================================================
The State Of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Indra Kumar Mishra & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to GA-11.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocate.
Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE )
3 19-12-2014I.A. No. 9435 of 2014 has been filed by the appellants, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 6 months and 10 days in preferring the present letters patent appeal against the order, dated 01.04.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 22339 of 2013.
Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Sri Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. Heard also Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, and Mr. Vinod Bihari Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
Having considered the reasons assigned in the present limitation petition and having heard the learned counsel for the Patna High Court LPA No.1673 of 2014 (3) dt.19-12-2014 2/3 parties, this Court is satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient causes from preferring the appeal within time.
In view of the above, the delay of 6 months and 10 days, in preferring the letters patent appeal, is hereby condoned.
I.A. No. 9435 of 2014 shall stand disposed of. It has been submitted, on behalf of the appellants, that the service of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 is not pensionable service and, therefore, the order, impugned in the appeal, whereby a direction has been given to fix the provisional pension of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 is not tenable in law. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that in L.P.A. No. 908 of 2006, CWJC No. 2796 of 2011, CWJC No. 7702 of 10 and CWJC No. 8825 of 2010, the same issue has been raised and, therefore, all the connected appeals and writ petitions needs to be heard together.
In order to avoid conflicting orders emanating from the writ petitions and the appeals aforementioned, and also to determine, at the earliest, the rights, if any, of the writ petitioner- respondents, who have been seeking pension, it would be in the interest of justice if this appeal as also L.P.A. No. 908 of 2006, CWJC No. 2796 of 2011, CWJC No. 7702 of 10 and CWJC No. 8825 of 2010, are heard together and disposed of at the earliest.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, it is Patna High Court LPA No.1673 of 2014 (3) dt.19-12-2014 3/3 hereby directed that this appeal, along with L.P.A. No. 908 of 2006, CWJC No. 2796 of 2011, CWJC No. 7702 of 10 and CWJC No. 8825 of 2010, be listed, on 29.01.2015, under the heading 'For Admission-I', for final disposal at the admission stage.
Having also heard learned counsel for the parties concerned on the prayer of stay in I.A. 9436 of 2014, we are of the view that in the facts and attending circumstances, there shall be an order of stay of the impugned order, dated 01.04.2014, passed in CWJC No. 22339 of 2013 inasmuch as the impugned order, if not stayed, may lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Until further orders, the operation of the impugned order, dated 01.04.2014, passed in CWJC No. 22339 of 2013, shall remain stayed.
It is, however, made clear that in case there is delay in disposal of the appeal, the respondents shall remain at liberty to move this Court for modification or cancellation of the interim directions given above.
(I.A. Ansari, ACJ.) (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Mkr./-
U