IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1505 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 2506 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 8484 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1505 of 2010 ==================================================== 1. Begusarai Zila Parishad Karam Chari Sangh through its Secretary Bashisth Prasad Singh, S/o Late Kusheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Panhas, P.O. Suhirdnagar, P.S. and District-Begusarai. 2. Bashisth Prasad Singh, S/o Late Kusheshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Panhas, P.O. Suhirdnagar, P.S. and District-Begusarai …. …. Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director Panchayati Raj Department. 5. The Deputy Director cum Deputy Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Begusarai. …. …. Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Choubey, GP-7 For the Zila Parishad: Mr. Prashant Kumar Choudhary, Advocate with Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 2.12.2010. Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8484 of 2010: - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 130 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1505 of 2010: - The appellants, association of the employees of the Begusarai Zila Parishad and its Secretary, have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and order dated 18th March 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3506 of 2010. The appellants seek the benefit of Assured Career Progression at par with the employees of the State Government. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition was the decision of the Begusarai Zila Parishad to withdraw the benefit of the Assured Career Progression earlier granted to its employees. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. It is observed that earlier the benefit of Assured Career Progression was allowed under misconception that it was applicable to Zila Parishads also. However, in view of the instructions received from the State Government the same has been withdrawn. Learned Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the condition of service of the State employees ipso facto applies to the employees of the Zila Parishad. For that he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. Narmdeshwar Tripathy and others v. the State of Bihar and others [C.W.J.C. No. 18372 of 2009; decided on 21st January 2010 (coram : V.N. Sinha, J.)]. Mr. Singh has submitted that having once held that the service conditions of the State employees do apply to the employees of the local authorities, the learned single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition. We have perused the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964 and the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service Conditions (“Assured Career Progression Scheme”) Rules, 2003, particularly Rule 7(7) thereof. It is apparent that the concerned Zila Parishad has power to alter the condition of service of its employees. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Singh is in respect of the employees of the State Government posted under the Zila Parishads, a separate class of employees. The aforesaid Rules of 2003 specifically excludes the autonomous institutions from its applicability. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, we see no merit in this Appeal. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)