JUDGMENT : I.A.No.2154 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 151 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.2154 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 151 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A.No.112 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6190 of 2011, which has been allowed setting aside the order dated 24.08.2011, by which, the period of service of writ petitioner from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 has been denied to be regularised. 2. The brief facts of the case required to be enumerated herein for consideration of the lis reads as hereunder :- The writ petitioner was appointed vide notification dated 02.07.1999 on the post of Homeopathic Doctor by the erstwhile State of Bihar. The Clause-2 of the said notification directs the writ petitioner to give joining at the headquarters in the directorate within 15 days from the issuance of the said notification. According to the writ petitioner, she has joined the directorate on 05.07.1999 but was kept waiting for posting and was posted on 29.12.1999 only. The writ petitioner thereafter has been posted at Chatra. The writ petitioner, therefore, claims that the period i.e., from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the period when she remained in the directorate, waiting for her posting, has not been regularised and therefore, made representation for its regularisation but the grievance having not been redressed, she has approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010, praying for regularisation of the aforesaid period of her service. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.10.2010, directing the authority to consider the matter of the writ petitioner and the objection raised by the State and thereafter, the authority has came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner will be entitled to salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 as the writ petitioner on her appointment gave her joining pursuant to an order at the Headquarter and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be said to have not joined her duty on 05.07.1999 and hence, it has not been left open for the State to say that the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when she gave her joining pursuant to the order of posting. According to the writ petitioner in pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2010, the respondents-authorities have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2011 negating the claim of the writ petitioner for regularising her service from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the same has been assailed before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6190 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.2017, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has assailed the aforesaid order inter-alia on the ground that the decision has been taken by the authority as on 24.08.2011, strictly in terms of the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code but the same has been quashed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-and hence, the learned Single Judge has committed error in quashing the order along with the cost of Rs.10,000/-, hence, the same is not sustainable. 4. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-State who was respondent before the writ Court as also the State of Bihar has found from the material available on record the admitted fact to the effect that the writ petitioner was appointed by virtue of notification dated 02.07.1999 as Homeopathic Doctor by the erstwhile State of Bihar. It is evident from Clause-2 of the offer of appointment, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitioner was directed to give joining at the headquarters in the directorate within 15 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. It is evident from Clause-2 of the offer of appointment, whereby and whereunder, the writ petitioner was directed to give joining at the headquarters in the directorate within 15 days from the date of issuance of the said notification. It further appears from the record that the writ petitioner had joined the directorate on 05.07.1999 but was kept waiting till her order of posting which was issued on 29.12.1999 for posting her at Chatra. The period i.e., from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the period for waiting for posting at directorate since has not been regularised, the writ petitioner has made due representation but having not considered, the writ petitioner had approached to this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010, praying therein for regularisation of period of service from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999. 5. The State has filed an affidavit taking the ground therein that in view of the Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code, the said period is not fit to be regularised. 6. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010 has passed an order which reads as hereunder:- “……. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State, it does appear that the petitioner on being selected was appointed by order dated 2.7.1999 and was asked to give his joining and accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining on the Headquarter on 5.7.1999 and waited for regular posting until 29.12.1999 when the order of posting was passed, pursuant to which the petitioner gave his joining and this delayed posting was never occasioned due to fault of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period from 5.7.1999 to 29.12.1999 as the petitioner on his appointment gave his joining pursuant to an order at the Headquarter and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have not joined his duties on 05.07.1999 and therefore, it would not be open for the State to say that the petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when he gave his joining pursuant to the order of posting. In that view of the matter, the Secretary, Health Medicine Education and Family Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no.6 is directed to do the needful in the matter of regularizing the service of the petitioner from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 and to take decision in the matter of payment of the salary for the period from 5.7.1999 to 29.12.1999 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this application is allowed.” It is evident from the order as quoted hereinabove that the writ Court has taken into consideration the admitted fact about the order of issuance of notification for appointment which contains a direction for joining of the writ petitioner at Headquarter, in pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner had joined her duty on 05.07.1999 and waited for regular posting till 29.12.1999, the day when the order of posting was passed in pursuance to which, the writ petitioner has given her joining at Chatra. It further appears from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition that the issuance of order of posting from directorate to Chatra as on 29.12.1999, keeping the writ petitioner waiting till 29.12.1999 has been held to be occasioned not due to the fault of the petitioner, as such, the writ petitioner has been held entitled to salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 as the writ petitioner, on her appointment, gave her joining pursuant to an order at the Headquarter and as such, the writ petitioner cannot be said to have not joined her duty on 05.07.1999, and therefore, but left it open for the State to say that the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when she gave her joining pursuant to the order of posting. 7. 7. It appears from the impugned order that when the grievance of the writ petitioner was negated vide order dated 24.08.2011, the learned Single Judge while dealing with the action of the State authority in taking such decision even when there is a finding to the effect that the writ petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, therefore, negating the claim, the respondents having held in exceeding the jurisdiction in passing the impugned order by holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the said period. The order passed by the respondent-authority has not been accepted in view of the fact that the issue has already been dealt with and decided by this Court while disposing of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010. Accordingly, the impugned order has been set aside with a direction upon the respondents to immediately regularise the services of the writ petitioner for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the period during which the writ petitioner was kept waiting for posting, with a further direction upon the respondents to pay the salary for the said period and all the consequential benefits within three weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6190 of 2011 has also come to the finding by holding therein that this Court in earlier round of litigation has considered the implication of the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code and came to the finding that the writ petitioner was entitled for the salary of the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 and hence again taking the same decision, has been found nothing but to unnecessarily harass the writ petitioner therefore, cost of Rs.10,000/-has been imposed upon the State, which should be paid to the writ petitioner. 8. It is evident from the material available on record that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010 holding the writ petitioner entitled for salary from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 but the aforesaid finding has never been assailed by the State-authority before any higher Forum, meaning thereby, the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010, has attained its finality. The authorities, however, have been directed to say that the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when she gave her joining pursuant to the order of posting. This part of the order has been considered by the State-authority about conferring power upon it to take decision afresh. The question herein is that when the writ Court has come to a definite finding holding the writ petitioner entitled to salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 on the ground that there was no laches on the part of the writ petitioner, however, the liberty has been granted upon the State that the writ petitioner in terms of Rule 58 of the Bihar Service Code would be entitled to salary only when she gave her joining pursuant to the order of posting that does not mean that the authority will negate the claim of the writ petitioner without challenging the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in an order passed in aforesaid writ petition holding the writ petitioner entitled for salary for the aforesaid period. 9. This Court has also deem it fit and proper to consider the provision of Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which reads as hereunder:- “58. (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of clause (b) of this rule, a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. (b) Unless in any individual case the State Government otherwise direct a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment as follows:- (i) in the case of a person who receives a first class passage to India, from the date of his arrival in India, [subject to his proceeding to take up his duties without avoidable delay]. (b) Unless in any individual case the State Government otherwise direct a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on first appointment as follows:- (i) in the case of a person who receives a first class passage to India, from the date of his arrival in India, [subject to his proceeding to take up his duties without avoidable delay]. (ii) in the case of a person who receives a second class passage to India from the date of his embarkation for India.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date on which he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he cease to discharge those duties. It is, thus, evident that the government servant can only claim the salary attached to the post when he assumes the duties of that post. 10. It is evident from the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 that merely the reference of Rule 58 of the Service Code has been made but no reason has been assigned as to why the provision of Rule 58 in the facts and circumstances of the case, will be applicable. It is not the case of the State authority that pursuant to offer of appointment dated 02.07.1999, the writ petitioner has not given her joining rather she has given her joining in compliance to the condition stipulated under offer of appointment, wherein under Clause-2 it has been stipulated that appointees will give his/her joining before the directorate, Bihar, Patna within 15 days from the date of receipt of offer of appointment as would appear from the offer of appointment annexed as annexure-6 to the memo of appeal. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has given her joining in terms of the stipulation made under Clause-2 of the offer of appointment dated 02.07.1999 which has been accepted in the directorate on 05.07.1999. The writ petitioner was kept waiting for posting till 29.12.1999 at directorate and only on 29.12.1999, posting order was issued for posting her at Chatra. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has given her joining in terms of the stipulation made under Clause-2 of the offer of appointment dated 02.07.1999 which has been accepted in the directorate on 05.07.1999. The writ petitioner was kept waiting for posting till 29.12.1999 at directorate and only on 29.12.1999, posting order was issued for posting her at Chatra. Thus, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner has not complied with the direction as contained in the offer of appointment dated 02.07.1999 and once she has given her joining at the directorate, it was incumbent upon the directorate to issue appropriate order, posting the writ petitioner at any place depending upon the requirement but admittedly till 29.12.1999, no such order was issued which resulted into waiting for posting till 29.12.1999. 11. In such factual scenario, the Rule 58 of the Service Code will not be applicable since the writ petitioner has already given her joining in pursuance to the condition stipulated in the offer of appointment as on 05.07.1999 and therefore, she will be entitled for salary from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 even in terms of the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code. The authority perhaps, interpreting that since the writ petitioner has not been posted, hence as per Rule 58 of Service Code, she will not be entitled for salary, but such interpretation, according to us is baseless, it is for the reason that if the writ petitioner has been asked to give joining at Headquarter, the moment she joined, it was the duty of the authority to immediately post her but no such order was passed and hence, the writ petitioner remain at Headquarter. The matter would have been different if even in spite of issuance of the order of posting, if the writ petitioner would not have joined but this is not the case here and hence salary to the writ petitioner for the aforesaid period cannot be denied. 12. The matter would have been different if even in spite of issuance of the order of posting, if the writ petitioner would not have joined but this is not the case here and hence salary to the writ petitioner for the aforesaid period cannot be denied. 12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the entitlement of the writ petitioner has been held about the salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999 by an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010, which has not been assailed by the authority and hence, coming to the conclusion by the authority in pursuant to the observation made by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010 for passing of an order about entitlement in terms of Rule 58 of the Service Code and in view thereof, negating the claim by applying the provision of Rule 58 of the Service Code even though, the writ petitioner has given her joining on 05.07.1999, cannot be said to be a justified decision of the authority. Moreover, when once the writ Court has held the writ petitioner entitled for salary for the period from 05.07.1999 to 29.12.1999, the authorities have no occasion to take contrary view without assailing the said order before the Higher Forum. In these circumstances, the order passed by the writ Court which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2011 along with the cost of Rs.10,000/-cannot be faulted with. 13. This Court is also dealing with the order about imposing the cost of Rs.10,000/- which according to the learned counsel for the appellants, is not justified but according to the considered view of this Court, the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- cannot be said to an error in view of the fact that the administrative authority cannot be allowed to sit over the judicial order passed by a Court of Law. If the administrative authority is aggrieved in any way, it is open for such authority to assail the aforesaid order but without assailing the aforesaid order or any finding recorded by the order passed by the Court of Law, the authority cannot be allowed to sit over upon the finding recorded by the Court of Law. 14. If the administrative authority is aggrieved in any way, it is open for such authority to assail the aforesaid order but without assailing the aforesaid order or any finding recorded by the order passed by the Court of Law, the authority cannot be allowed to sit over upon the finding recorded by the Court of Law. 14. The Principal Secretary of the Department, being the highest authority, in a highly illegal and arbitrary manner, has negated the claim sitting over upon the finding recorded by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2039 of 2010 which is nothing but a contemptuous act committed on his part and taking it into consideration the cost of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed, which according to our considered view, the learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view. 15. On the basis of the detailed discussion made hereinabove and in the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 16. In the result, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. 17. In consequent to disposal of this appeal, I.A.No.2153 of 2018 stands disposed of.