JUDGMENT Ratnaker Bhengra, J. – This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1503 of 2007, whereby the petition preferred by this petitioner was dismissed and hence, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The Claim of this appellant to get the time bound promotion (Assured Career Progression Scheme Benefit) with effect from 1980, i.e. from the date on which he was appointed as a typist on daily wage, is not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Factual Matrix Original petitioner was appointed as a daily wager Typist on 1st May. 1980. He was appointed on temporary basis for six months as Typist in the year 1985, which was extended from time to time. The services of this appellant (original petitioner) was terminated vide order dated 31st December. 1996 because the appointment of this appellant was not in accordance with law. Challenging the order dated 31st December, 1996, a writ petition was instituted by the appellant being C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 1997 (R) which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16th-September. 1997 (Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Vide this order, order of termination dated 31st December, 1996 was quashed and there was a direction to the government to regularise the services of this appellant. Against this decision, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the State of Jharkhand being L.P.A. No. 546 of 1997 (R), which was withdrawn by the State of Jharkhand and the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of as withdrawn vide Order dated 16th March, 2000 (Annexure 2 to the memo of this L.P.A.). Thereafter, this appellant (original petitioner) was permitted to resume duties vide letter dated 28th June, 2000 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A.). This joining was allowed with effect from 1st October. 1997. This letter has never been challenged by this appellant before any competent court. This letter has attained its finality as this appellant has accepted the said letter. Thereafter, again this appellant has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 for getting pay revision because it is alleged by this appellant that juniors to this appellant were getting higher salary. This letter has attained its finality as this appellant has accepted the said letter. Thereafter, again this appellant has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 for getting pay revision because it is alleged by this appellant that juniors to this appellant were getting higher salary. Meanwhile, this appellant reached the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2012 and his pension has been fixed vide order dated 24th April, 2014 (Annexure 5 to the memo of this L.P.A.) on the basis of his initial joining on 29th April, 1985. W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 was finally decided by the learned Single Judge and the petition was dismissed, in so far as the claim for treating this appellant in continuous service since 1st May, 1980 and for other consequential benefits since 1st May, 1980 are concerned and hence, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Arguments canvassed by counsel appearing for the Appellant: Counsel for the appellant submitted that the juniors to this appellant are getting higher salary and hence, this appellant has preferred the writ petition. Moreover, it is prayed that his initial date of joining should have been treated as 1st May, 1980 and the retirement benefits ought to have been paid as if this appellant has joined the services on 1st May, 1980 and retired on 30th April, 2012. There was also a prayer for salary relating to the period running from 23rd January to 30th September, 1997. Further prayer was for bonus at any rate, whatsoever, for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. Travelling Allowance as well as cumulative interest at the rate of 14% (Bank lending interest rate) along with exemplary cost mainly on the basis that this appellant was appointed as Typist on daily wages from 1st May, 1980 and few observations made by this Court in the order dated 16th September, 1997 in C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 1997(R). Moreover, it is further submitted that even as per the pension papers, the initial date of joining as accepted by the government is 29th April, 1985. These aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016.and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. These aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016.and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that on 1st May, 1980 this appellant was appointed as a daily wager Typist. Thereafter, he was appointed on a temporary (six months) basis on 27th April, 1985, which was extended from time to time and his service were terminated on 31st December, 1996, on the ground that his appointment was not in accordance with law. There was no advertisement, no interview and no test and public at large were not given any opportunity to apply for the post of Typist. This appellant was one of the few fortunates who got employment as a back door entrant leaving aside other equally competent persons. This is the nature of appointment of this appellant. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that the aforesaid termination order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 1997(R) in which this Court passed an order dated 16th September. 1997 for regularisation of his services. 7. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State against the aforesaid order, being L.P.A. No. 546 of 1997 (R) was withdrawn by the Government and the order of withdrawal was passed on 16th March, 2000 and hence as the Letters Patent appeal was withdrawn by the Government of Jharkhand, ultimately, vide letter dated 28th June. 2000. this appellant was permitted to resume duties as a Typist on regular basis w.e.f 1st October. 1997. It appears that this letter of joining dated 1st October. 1997 was never challenged for a period of one decade. This letter was accepted by this appellant for 10 long years and therefore, this letter has attained its finality. 8. 2000. this appellant was permitted to resume duties as a Typist on regular basis w.e.f 1st October. 1997. It appears that this letter of joining dated 1st October. 1997 was never challenged for a period of one decade. This letter was accepted by this appellant for 10 long years and therefore, this letter has attained its finality. 8. In the year 2007, a writ petition was preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 for getting pay revision and I.A. No. 3980 of 2016 was also preferred in the aforesaid writ petition for treating this appellant to be in continuous service with effect from 1st May, 1980 and to get the salary for the period running from 23rd January, 1997 to 30th September, 1997 and for bonus for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96 as well as Travelling Allowance. None of this prayers can be granted while exercising powers under Article 14 of the Constitution of India mainly for the following reasons: (a) Initially illegally appointed candidate was regularised vide order dated 16th September, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 1997(R) (Annexure 1 to the memo of the L.P.A.) against which Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the State and later on the said Letters Patent Appeal has been withdrawn and the appellant was allowed to join, ultimately, by the State vide letter dated 28th June, 2000 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A.). This joining was allowed w.e.f. 1st October, 1997. (b) This letter (Annexure 3 to the memo of the L.P.A.), which allows this appellant to resume duties with effect from 1st October. 1997 has never been challenged for a long period. This letter was accepted for years together. At a much belated stage, a writ petition was preferred, being W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 and even in this writ petition also the communication dated 28th June, 2000 (Annexure 3 to the memo of the L.P.A.) was never under challenge. (c) It appears that initially as a daily wager this appellant was appointed and he was never appointed on regular basis at all. There was no public advertisement for the post of Typist nor there was any test or interview given by this appellant. (c) It appears that initially as a daily wager this appellant was appointed and he was never appointed on regular basis at all. There was no public advertisement for the post of Typist nor there was any test or interview given by this appellant. Public at large was never given an opportunity for the post of Typist in which back door entry is made by this appellant by the grace of some over gracious person and as one of the few fortunates, this appellant was appointed on temporary basis as a Typist for six months on 27th April, 1985 and his services were terminated due to this illegality vide order dated 31st December, 1996. Nonetheless, in the writ petition the learned Single Judge issued the writ of mandamus for regularisation of services of this appellant. This is how this appellant was permitted to resume the duties with effect from 1st October, 1997 vide communication dated 28th June, 2000. Hence, in no circumstance, his services can be reckoned for any purpose. whatsoever, either with effect from 1st May, 1980 or from 27th April, 1985. (d) Even though there was gross illegality in the appointment of this appellant including violation of Article 14 to be read with Article 16 of the Constitution of India and utter violation of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 , Paragraph No.s 10 to 13, this appellant was permitted to be regularised in the services of the Government and he was allowed to resume duties vide letter dated 28th June, 2000 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A) with effect from 1st October, 1997. (e) Enough leniency and grace has been shown to this appellant and hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 vide order dated 17th November, 2016. This appellant cannot get time bound promotion with effect from 1st May. 1980. The reasons are given in Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the order dated 17th November, 2016, with which we are in full agreement. Moreover, this appellant has claimed salary for the period running from 23rd January. 1997 to 30th September. 1997. This appellant cannot get time bound promotion with effect from 1st May. 1980. The reasons are given in Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the order dated 17th November, 2016, with which we are in full agreement. Moreover, this appellant has claimed salary for the period running from 23rd January. 1997 to 30th September. 1997. In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that this appellant cannot get salary because no work has been done by him during the said period. This appellant has also claimed bonus for the year 1994-95 and 1995-96. Counsel for the appellant could not justify this claim of bonus. There is no law which entitles the appellant to get bonus. 9. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 1503 of 2007 preferred by the appellant vide judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016 and we are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. 10. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant for getting all types of benefits with effect from 1st May, 1980 because of one or two observations made by the learned Single Judge while deciding the earlier writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 469 of 1997(R) vide order dated 16th September, 1997, by which this services of this appellant have been regularised. Learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition has observed that this appellant was appointed in the year 1980 and has worked for 17 years. These are the observations in paragraph 2 of the order dated 16th September, 1997 for passing an order of regularisation of the services of this appellant. These two observations never give any legitimate right to this appellant to claim regularisation from 1st May, 1980 because his services were already terminated because of illegality in the appointment process and therefore, at the highest, benefit that can be given to him, is from 1st October, 1997 and not from 1st May, 1980. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.