Judgment 1. I.A. No. 3609 of 2006 has been filed for condoning the delay of 238 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the grounds stated in the application for condoning the delay, which have "remained uncontroverted, as well as, keeping in mind the latest proposition of law of delay condonation jurisprudence, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for not filing this Letters Patent Appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No costs. 3. Upon consensus the parties have been heard on the merits of the appeal itself. 4. It appears that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 28.11.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 12088 of 2004 was constrained to make observation and direction against the appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances which are highlighted in the impugned judgment itself. 5. It is specifically observed by the learned Single Judge that - "It is surprising that the Executive Officer-cum-Special Officer, Munger Nagar Parishad, Munger has the audacity to call the order passed by the Chairman of the Nagar Parishad revoking the order of suspension of the petitioners as an illegal order". 6. It is in these context the learned Single Judge was left with no alternative to but to observe that- "The State Government is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the said Executive Officer for the said action on his part. If necessary the State Government is directed to obtain certified xerox copy of the counter affidavit affirmed by him and filed in this Court in this case". 7. It appears that the learned Single Judge was swayed by the right feeling from the counter affidavit that the appellant does not have respect over the superior. Prima facie, under the service jurisprudence, a person who disregards and disrespects a superior authority in the hierarchy cannot be tolerated and, therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be misplaced or wrongly made. 8. Learned counsel for the original writ petitioners respondent nos. 4 to 8, specifically, stated before us that despite direction of the Court, the amount of subsistence allowance and arrears of salary are not fully paid. 8. Learned counsel for the original writ petitioners respondent nos. 4 to 8, specifically, stated before us that despite direction of the Court, the amount of subsistence allowance and arrears of salary are not fully paid. This aspect reinforces the type and pattern of action the petitioner is taking despite the order of the Court. Much time has elapsed in between. Despite revocation of the suspension order, non-payment of subsistence allowance and arrears of salary in full is highly con-demnable. 9. We, therefore, find no substance in this appeal. In our opinion there no material whatsoever spelt out from the record which would require any interference by this Court in exercise of power under clause X of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court. This appeal shall, therefore, stand dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged. 10. However, we further direct the appellant to pay full amount of arrears of salary as well as subsistence allowance, if not fully paid so far, within a period of one month from today failing which it will be open for the original writ petitioner respondent nos. 4 to 8 to move this Court for further direction.