IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LPA No.912 of 2008 --- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL –CUM-CENSUS COMMISSIONER OF INDIA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, 2/A MANSINGH ROAD, KOTA HOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CENSUS OPERATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, JWALA BHAWAN, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA NOW AT TALPATRA LANE, ADITYA COMPOUND, NEAR ASHOK CINEMA, BUDH MARGH, PATNA 3. SRI PRAMOD KUMAR VERMA, SON OF NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF CENSUS OPERATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, JWALA BHAWAN, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA NOW AT TALPATRA LANE, ADITYA COMPOUND, NEAR ASHOK CINEMA, BUDH MARG, PATNA …… … RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS Versus 1. JAYANT KUMAR LAHIRI KUMAR LAHIRI, SON OF LATE DR. H.C. LAHIRI, RESIDING AT PRESENT 404 VAISHNAVI UMAGIRI APARTMENT, OPPOSITE L.C.T. GHAT, TOWN PATNA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION – PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT – PATNA … ……………….PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 1ST SET. 2. THE BIHAR STATE SUGAR CORPORATION THROUGH THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE SITUATED IN 2ND FLOOR, APNA BAZAR COMPLEX, PATNA, POLICE STATION GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA … ………………RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Singh, ASG Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate For the respondents : None P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal 2 --- Dated, the 20th November, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of five days, for which an application (IA. No.6782 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the letters patent appeal is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. 2. The single judge considered the matter thus: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter dated 7.3.2007 is only a ploy to cover up their inaction. They intentionally ignored the earlier communication made by the Managing Director and only when they knew that matter is going to travel to the court that they had created a letter to cover up and fill the time gap and inaction. The Court does not want to get bogged down with the dispute of the kind. The question is once the Managing Director had certified way back in the year 2005 and if the respondents concerned had any doubt, they should have taken steps immediately thereafter. If nothing has been done in all these years, then the Court has difficulty in allowing the respondents to prolong the litigation and the matter indefinitely. Direction is therefore issued upon the respondent no. 2, the Joint Director, Directorate of Census Operations and respondent no. 4 that they shall ensure the calculation of the difference of salary, take steps for payment of the same and if necessary, will also seek a declaration of indemnity from the petitioner that if at any point of time any discrepancy in the pay and emoluments is found, the petitioner shall be bound to refund the same, if necessity for the same arises without any legal action or technicality in this regard. It is hoped and expected that the above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order.” 3 3. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the single judge. 4. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. This disposes of application for condonation of delay (IA. No.6782 of 2008). 5. Since the appeal has been dismissed in limine, the application for interim relief does not survive. Consequently, the said application (IA. No.6783 of 2008) is also dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-