IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1655 of 2009 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidhuat Bhawan, Bailey Road, patna 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhuat Bhawan, Patna 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Gaya …………………. Appellants Versus Krishneshwar Kumar Sinha s/o Rampal Sinha, r/o village – Shiv Nagar, P.S. – Karpi, District – arwal, presently posted as Assistant Controller Transmission Sub-Division, Chandauti, District - Gaya ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate --- 2 4/1/2010 I.A. No.8739 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 110 days. We have heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants, on the question of delay. Before adverting to the question of condonation of delay, we thought it apposite to hear learned counsel for the appellants on merits. In this intra-court appeal the legal substantiality of the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.4034 of 2008 is 2 called in question. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is demonstrably clear that he has quashed the order of realization of amount that was supposed to have been illegally paid to the writ petitioner. The stand that was put forth by the present appellants before the writ court was that there was erroneous payment inasmuch as the writ petitioner was engaged beyond the permissible limit and hence the excess sum deserved to be recovered. The learned Single Judge , as is perceived, has negatived the plea as there was no denial of the fact that the writ petitioner was actually engaged and performed the duties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the employee could not have been engaged beyond the limit fixed by the Circular. Be that as it may, when he has been engaged we perceive no reason to deny him the benefit. It is open for the Board to take action against its officers but that does not debar the writ petitioner to avail the benefit and once the same has been paid without any kind of demur, needless to 3 emphasise no coercive steps shall be taken for realization of the same. As we find no error in the order of the learned single judge, there is no justification for issue of notice in the matter relating to condonation of delay as the same shall be an exercise in futility and, accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands rejected and as a natural corollary the appeal also stands dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)