Judgment 1. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the grounds stated in the delay condonation application, supported by affidavit, and there being no counter, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the Letters Patent Appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay of nine days and, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, as prayed for.and the application being i.A No. 1492/2006 is allowed. No costs. 2. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.2.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15240 of 2005, whereby the writ petition, filed by the respondents, being original writ petitioners against the correctness and validity of office order no. 787 dated 3rd December, 2005, whereunder they have been permanently allocated to the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short JSAMB), in the light of the decision of the Government of India dated 13th September, 2004 and the decision of the State Government contained in resolution dated 23rd May, 2005, was allowed, quashing the same, which aggrieved the Master appellant-Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short BSAMB) and hence this Letters Patent Appeal, at its instance by invocation of the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court. 3. In order to appreciate the merit of the appeal vis-a-vis the order of the learned Single Judge and the factual profile, let there be stated some relevant material facts; (i) pursuant to the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court, on 13th August, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 2002, the Central Government was directed to take decision regarding division of assets and liabilities of the Government Companies and Public Sector Undertakings in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, in consuitation with the Governments of States of Jharkhand and Bihar within four weeks from the date (13th August, 2004); and (ii) whereas, pursuant to that direction upon a meeting heid on 3rd September, 2004, at Ranchi, the officers representing Governments of Bihar and Jharkhand reached to the mutual acceptable agreement for apportionment of assets and liabilities in respect of the aforesaid Board. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (BSAMB) is one of the eighteen Companies/Corporations, in respect of which a decision for division of assets and liabilities had been taken pursuant to the following agreement: "Out of the 122 Market Committees of undivided Bihar 95 are now located in Bihar and 27 in Jharkhand. (i) The cash balance and movable assets of the Board will De divided in the ratio of assets and liabilities created in the form of market committees as 95 and 27 respectively in Bihar and Jharkhand as per audited accounts of the Board as on 31.3.2000. (ii) The movable assets will be divided on "as is where is" basis. (iii) The division of employees would be on "as is where is" for regular employees posted against sanctioned posts approved by the Board as on 14.11.2000. (iv) The employees posted in the Board headquarters against sanctioned posts approved by the Board, as on 14.11.2000 would also be divided in the same proportion as cash balance and immovable assets stated in (i) above." 4. It is in these context, let it be highlighted that in exercise of power conferred upon it under section 65(1) & (2) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 and in accordance with the mutual agreement as above, the Central Government passed the following order: "(i) Assets: (a) Immovable assets of the erstwhile Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board situated in either Bihar or Jharkhand will pass on to the Successor Board of the State in which they are locaed. (b) Cash balance and movable assets of the erstwhile Board will be divided among successor Boards in the ratio of assets created in the form of market committees as 95 and 27 respectively in Bihar and Jharkhand as per audited accounts of the Board as on 31.3.2000. (ii) Liabilities: Asset specific liability of the erstwhile Board shall pass on to the successor Boards (BSAMB or JSAMB) to which the asset has been allocated. (iii) Employees: (a) All regular employees posted against sanctioned post approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14.11.2000 would be divided on "as is where is" basis. (b) Employees posted in the Board headquarters again sanctioned posts approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14.11.2000 would also be divided in the same proportion as cash balance and movable assets as in (i)(b) above." 5. (b) Employees posted in the Board headquarters again sanctioned posts approved by the erstwhile Board as on 14.11.2000 would also be divided in the same proportion as cash balance and movable assets as in (i)(b) above." 5. Pursuant to the mutual agreement and the order of the Central Government, the State of Bihar also passed an order in relation to the assets and liabilities of the BSAMB in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon it under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, wherein Clause 7 is relevant, which has two sub-clauses and it deals with the allocation and distribution of liabilities and assets including the personnel. 6. It is in these context, the impugned order came to be recorded, whereby the respondents, original writ petitioners, came to be allocated to the JSAMB. The original writ petitioners-respondents herein, have been working in the cadre of Assistants in the BSAMB and according to their case, at the relevant time, they were serving at two Market Committees as Incharge Marketing Secretaries and as per the formula and the agreement evolved and pursuant to the agreement, they should not have been allocated to JSAMB by virtue of office order no. 787 dated 3rd December, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said order, therefore, they filed writ petition questioning its legality and validity by invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the factual profile, as well as, relevant terms and conditions of the agreement and different orders, reached to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed as the allocation of the writ petitioners-respondents to the JSAMB was not in consonance with the agreement and the formula evolved since they were working at the relevant time in the fields and not at the headquarter, therefore, the impugned order came to be set aside. That is how this Letters Patent Appeal has come up before us. 7. That is how this Letters Patent Appeal has come up before us. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and examined the terms and conditions and the formula arising out of the agreement pursuant to the orders of the State Government, as well as, the Central Government in the light of the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is quite justified as the order challenged by the writ petitioners was not in consonance but was in contrary to the terms and conditions as at the relevant time they were not working at the headquarter, they were working in the fields. It is in these context, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge upon appraisal and assessment of the factual profile and relevant terms and conditions and the agreement, as well as, the relevant orders, deserves no interference. It is not understood why an impersonal master, like the appellant, should agitate so vehemently and so vigorously against its employees despite the clear decision of the Court. In our opinion, the Letters Patent Appeal should not have been filed. The appellant-Board is expected to utilise the public funds for the welfare and good of the people and not to satisfy the egoes of few incharge, governing the Board against the small employees and waste time, money and energy. It is in these context, we are constrained to observe that the appeal, at hand, is quite meritless and deserves to be dismissed, with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 8. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed, with cost of Rs.5,000/-, affirming and confirming the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, questioned in the appeal.