IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1099 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 11893 of 2001 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6044 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.6045 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1099 of 2010 ============================================ The State of Jharkhand, through The Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department, Government Of Jharkhand, Ranchi ……………… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Chitta Ranjan Mehra, S/O Late Panchkauri Mehra, R/O Village – Gangarampur, P.S. Pathargama, District – Godda, Jharkhand ……. Respondents APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Advocat For the State : Mr. S.K.Ghose, AAG II Mr. L.B. Singh, AC to AAG II For the Respondent no.4 : Mr Syed Firoz Raza, Advocate =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 23/9/2010 IA. No.6044 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant – State of Jharkhand for condonation of delay of 620 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2 Although, it is the grievance of the appellant that the directions have been issued against the appellant by the learned Single Judge exparte, the appellant has partially complied with the said directions. Though the appellant was aware of the impugned directions since December 2008, the appellant chose to comply with the directions partially. When the demand was made for payment of the amount of difference in salary in compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge, the appeal has been preferred after the aforesaid delay of 620 days. It is apparent that the appellant had consciously decided to accept and comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The present Appeal preferred nearly after 2 years is clearly an afterthought with a view to avoiding payment of amount of the difference in salary. We are of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out a cause, much less a sufficient cause, for the delay in question. The Interlocutory Application is rejected. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal and the Interlocutory Application No.6045 of 2010 stand disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)