IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.482 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE HOME COMMISSIONER,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SARAN RANGE,CHAPRA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARAN, CHAPRA 5. THE COLLECTOR, SARAN, CHAPRA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SONEPUR 7. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SONEPUR P.S. DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA 8. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, NAYAGOAN P.S. DISTRICT SARAN, CHAPRA 9. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUIM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,SARAN,CHAPRA---------APPELLANTS Versus AZAD MIAN,SON OF LATE JUDAGI MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABALPUR, DISTRICT SARAN---------RESPONDENT ----------- For appellants:- Mr. Chhote Lal Narain Singh,S.C. I For Respondent:- Dr. M.P. Shukla 5 20.8.2009 Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar and other officials challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, whereunder the learned Single Judge had quashed the order relating to superannuation on the ground that as per the second Medical Board the writ petitioner was yet to attain the age of superannuation. The appeal has been filed after a delay of more than one year. Notice was issued on the question of limitation as well as in the appeal. The only statement which has been made in the affidavit in support of the petition for condonation of delay is as follows:- - 2 - “That thereafter time was taken in getting enter departmental sanction for filing L.P.A. against the impugned order and thereafter the file for filing L.P.A. was made over to S.C.-I on 17.2.2009.” In our considered opinion, these averments do not explain the long delay of one year in filing the appeal. Moreover, in the post of Chaukidar if poor person is allowed to continue the interest of State is not going to suffer. On the other hand, if the writ petitioner had retired and the new recruitment would have been made, if possible, the State would have ground on account of payment of salary as well as pension. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge because substantial justice has been done. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. It is however made clear that if the authorities subsequently find that the writ petitioner becomes incapacitated to continue to work they can take action at that stage. (P.K.Misra,C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) A.Kumar