JUDGEMENT 1. Paropkari Sharma, respondent herein filed CWJC No. 6321 of 1999 inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents to regularize his service as Blacksmith in the Central Jail, Buxar. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ application and while doing so it observed as follows: "In the aforesaid circumstances this court considers it appropriate to direct that the respondents be required to take a decision with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioner. While making such consideration the respondents would be required to keep in view the fact that today the petitioner would clearly be overage for any Government service. Any decision to his prejudice would land him and his family on the street. Liability for this would exclusively lie with the respondents. Let the respondents do so within a period of three months from toady. Should the respondents chose to pass an order prejudicial to the petitioner the order must be reasoned and speaking in nature so as to facilitate judicial review of the same." 2. The State Government was directed to consider the case of regularization within three months from the date of passing of the order. 3. When the case of Paropkari Sharma, hereinafter referred to as writ petitioner, was not considered within the time stipulated he filed contempt application before this Court on 15.7.2005 which was registered as MJC No. 1555 of 2005. When the contempt application was taken up, order dated 20th August, 2005 was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by which writ petitioner was continued on daily wages. According to the State Government he cannot be regularized as the post of Black Smith is reserved. It seems that during the course of hearing of the contempt application it surfaced that single post cannot be reserved, counsel representing the State Government took adjournment. Thereafter order dated 28.9.2006 was passed stating that services of the writ petitioner cannot be regularized in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others; (2006) 4 SCC 1 . However, it seems that during the course of hearing of the contempt application it transpired that the case of writ petitioner is covered under one time exception as observed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). vs. Uma Devi (3) & Others; (2006) 4 SCC 1 . However, it seems that during the course of hearing of the contempt application it transpired that the case of writ petitioner is covered under one time exception as observed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Thereafter the prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of the State Government and ultimately by order dated 5th July, 2007 writ petitioner was regularized in service. 4. Taking into account the aforesaid conduct of the State Government and its officials the learned Single Judge had awarded cost of rupees twenty five thousand and has further directed that cost shall be recoverable from the personal salary of officer concerned. 5. The State of Bihar and its officials and said Dipak Kumar Singh aggrieved by the aforesaid direction have preferred separate appeals "which have been registered as LPA No. 982 of 2007 and LPA No. 286 of 2008. 6. Additional Advocate General-3 appears on behalf of the appellants and submits that on the facts of the present case the learned Single Judge ought not to have awarded cost. 7. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was a little benevolent in awarding a cost of rupees twenty five thousand only. This Court by order dated 27.11.2004 directed the State Government and its officials to consider the case of regularization within three months. The State Government and its officials attempted to side line the issue and, ultimately, after more than two years took final decision on 5.7.2007 and writ petitioner regularized in service. 8. Ordinarily in Letters Patent Appeal, we do not interfere on the issue of cost unless an exceptional case is made out. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge rightly awarded the cost, which does not call for interference in the appeals. 9. We do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly.