IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.571 of 2009 ***** 1. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, BIRSA MUNDA CENTRAL JAIL, HOTWAR, RANCHI. (Not made party in connected writ petition) …. …. Appellants Versus 1. THEODORE SORANG, SON OF LATE KARLUS SORANG, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LOYADIH, P.S.-NAMKUM, DISTRICT-RANCHI. …. …. Petitioner-Respondent 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME. GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PRISONS, BIHAR. 5. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT JAIL, MADHUBANI. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ----------- 6. 25.6.2010. Heard the parties in respect of limitation contained in I.A. No. 2827 of 2009. For the reasons mentioned therein the delay of one year and 100 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands allowed. Admittedly, the appellants, which are State of Jharkhand and its official were not a party to the writ proceedings and this appeal has been permitted to be maintained on account of an application filed by the appellants seeking leave to prefer this appeal. - 2 - It is not in dispute that while the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13405 of 2001 filed by the respondent no.1 was pending before this Court, the services of the writ petitioner were allocated to the State of Jharkhand some time in the year 2005 but that fact could not be brought to the notice of the writ Court and the lawful employer of the writ petitioner, the State of Jharkhand, was not added as a party when the writ petition was finally heard and decided by the order under appeal dated 13.12.2007. After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that being the lawful employer of the writ petitioner at the relevant time, the appellant, State of Jharkhand and its concerned officials should have been added as a party-respondent before deciding the writ petition on merits. In view of the aforesaid facts, without going into the merits of the claims of the rival parties, the order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned writ Court for permitting impleadment of the appellants as party-respondent in the writ petition and to re-hear and decide the writ petition after giving opportunity - 3 - of filing counter affidavit to the appellants. Since the writ petition was filed long back in the year 2001 seeking quashing of order of punishment passed in 1998, we request the writ Court to hear the matter expeditiously, preferably within a month from the date of communication of a copy of this order. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)