JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. I.A. No. 947 of 2016 For the reasons carved out in the application and there being no serious objection from the side of the learned State Counsel, the delay of 377 days in filing the accompanied appeal by the widow of the deceased employee is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 947 of 2016 is allowed accordingly. L.P.A. No. 76 of 2016 With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, we take the main appeal on board for its final consideration. 2. Husband of the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioner) was working as Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police. A criminal case being Deoghar P.S Case No. 115 of 1985 was registered against the husband of the petitioner and others. Resultantly, he was dismissed from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding initiated against him. Ultimately, the husband of the petitioner and his other co-accused earned a judgment of acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that one of the co-accused thereafter challenged the order of dismissal from service through the medium of CWJC No. 11459 of 1998 taking the plea of acquittal earned by him and the writ petition came to be allowed and he was ultimately reinstated and in subsequent writ petition filed by him, he got 50% of the back-wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the unfortunate part is that the husband of the petitioner, who died in the year 1997 and earned acquittal along with other co-accused in the aforesaid criminal case, did not throw challenge to the order of dismissal from service, otherwise he could have also been benefited in the same terms as other co-accused/employee got the relief. That appears to be the only reason for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, vide impugned order of learned writ court referring to Section 101(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that since the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid rule was not entitled to any family pension or other dues, she after dismissal of the writ petition (W.P(S) No. 5791 of 2013) once again moved the writ court through the medium of W.P(S) No. 1119 of 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that since the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid rule was not entitled to any family pension or other dues, she after dismissal of the writ petition (W.P(S) No. 5791 of 2013) once again moved the writ court through the medium of W.P(S) No. 1119 of 2015. Since, order dated 05.01.2015 was staring at the petitioner, she withdrew the said petition with a permission to pursue the present Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly permission was granted as is clear from Annexure-1 annexed with I.A No. 947 of 2016. Learned counsel further contended that since the husband of the petitioner had not thrown challenge to the order of dismissal from service which fact would go on staring at the petitioner, who is the widow and has to look after her entire family, she may be permitted to throw challenge to the order of dismissal in accordance with law, may be at a belated stage, otherwise great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as on the same set of circumstances, other co-accused has already been benefited. 3. We, finding substance in the prayer made by the petitioner and there being no serious objection from the side of the State, dispose of the instant appeal granting permission to the petitioner to throw challenge to the order of dismissal from service of her deceased-husband, in accordance with law. 4. The instant Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of; with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.