JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 8530 of 2019: 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 385 days in preferring the instant appeal. 3. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 385 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 4. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 569 of 2019: 5. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 13.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Review No. 67 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the order passed by writ Court dated 08.06.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006 has been modified only to the extent that the payment of all the admissible dues as mentioned therein including the consequential benefits shall be made/extended to the review petitioner, namely, Lakshmi Devi. 6. The brief facts of the case which requires to be enumerated herein read as hereunder: One Prabhu Ram, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2006 issued under the signature of respondent No. 5, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of his retiral dues was rejected on the ground that the scheme under which the petitioner was posted had already been closed w.e.f. 16.05.2001 with a further prayer for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the entire retiral dues including gratuity and leave encashment and to forthwith fix and finalize the pension and arrears of salary of the petitioner. The aforesaid prayer has been made on the basis of the factual backdrop that the petitioner joined his services in the Adult Education as Supervisor on 12.12.1978, subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Project Officer and finally superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.01.2002 but the retiral dues has not been released as also arrears of salary for the period from 01.12.1998 to 28.12.1998, 28.02.1989 to 01.02.2000, 29.02.2000 to 01.05.2001, the arrear for the period from 17.03.1998 to 07.05.1998, the arrears of difference of salary from 17.03.1998 to June 1999 and the arrears of annual increment from 17.03.1999 to February, 2000. The writ Court passed an order by quashing the order dated 20.02.2006 with a direction upon the respondents to disburse the amount of gratuity and forthwith take steps for fixation of pension of the petitioner and also to pay him the arrears of pension with a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. The respondents were also directed to make payment of other dues such as leave encashment anhd admitted amount of arrears of salary (if not earlier paid) in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period along with the interest @ 6% per annum till the date of payment. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in its original jurisdiction, a review petition being Civil Review No. 67 of 2017 was filed by Lakshmi Devi for substitution of her name in place of her husband, namely, Prabhu Ram, in the order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006, stating inter alia therein that her husband, who had preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006 for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.06.2017, died on 18.11.2015.Further prayer was made to modify the aforesaid order with a direction upon the respondents to disburse the amount in her favour as has been directed to be disbursed in the order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006. The learned Single Judge with the consent of the respondent-State, who had filed a counter affidavit in the review petition, had modified the order dated 08.06.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006 vide order dated 13.07.2018 to the extent that the payment of all the admissible dues, as has been directed by the learned Single Judge while passing the order in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006, shall be disbursed in favour of the review petitioner, namely, Lakshmi Devi. 7. The State respondent has preferred the instant intra-court appeal against the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006 disposed of on 08.06.2017 as also the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Civil Review No. 67 of 2017. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has confined this appeal to challenge the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Civil Review No. 67 of 2017 only and not the final order which has been passed in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted on the strength of an order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 505-531 of 2020 rendered in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda vs. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Others decided on 07.02.2020 wherein it has been held that the services rendered by the appellants under the Adult Education and Non-formal Education Project cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits after the appellants were appointed afresh by the State. In that view of the matter it has been submitted that since the issue has already been set at rest disentitling the employees working under the Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project about the pensionary benefits, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding the writ petitioner entitled to get the pensionary benefits is required to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Mr. Amritansh Vatsh, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No. 1 is fair enough to make submission that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 505-531 of 2020 in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda vs. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Others, he is not in opposition with respect to the contention as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the State-appellant. He further submitted that in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent-State dated 19.10.2020 wherein the claim of the writ petitioner with respect to the interest over the arrears and salary as has been directed by the writ Court vide order dated 08.06.2017 in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006, the said amount has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 56,952/- as would be evident from paragraph 10 thereof, as such, appropriate direction may be passed upon the State-appellant to disburse the aforesaid amount without any further delay. 11. Upon this, learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that the aforesaid amount shall be paid in favour of the petitioner without any further delay. 12. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission made on their behalf and further considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 505-531 of 2020, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal, is required to be modified by holding that the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits/family pension, accordingly, the order dated 13.07.2018 passed in Civil Review No. 67 of 2017 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is not entitled for any pernsionary benefits/family pension. 13. It is not in dispute that arrears of salary had already been paid, save and except, the interest @ 6% per annum as has been directed by the writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 3561 of 2006, to that effect, specific assertion has been made at paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand dated 19.10.2020 making out a calculation of amount to the tune of Rs. 56,952/- which has been forwarded to the office of the Account General for its sanction. 14. In view of such admitted fact and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, hereby, directs the competent authority of the appellant-State as also the Accountant General of the State of Jharkhand to sanction the amount of Rs. 56,952/- which has been forwarded to the office of the Account General for its sanction. 14. In view of such admitted fact and as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, hereby, directs the competent authority of the appellant-State as also the Accountant General of the State of Jharkhand to sanction the amount of Rs. 56,952/- which has been forwarded to the office of Account General vide Memo No. 274 (Vidhi) dated 16.10.2020 so that the aforesaid amount shall be paid as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 15. In the result, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 16. Interlocutory Application No. 8529 of 2019 also stands disposed of.