JUDGMENT : [Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.] 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 6200 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 175 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 175 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 6200 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No.445 of 2019 4. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4477 of 2011 by which, while allowing the writ petition, the order as contained in Memo dated 08.08.2012 has been quashed and set aside and the respondents have been directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for his promotion as also for grant of the pay scale applicable to his post in the Circle Cadre and to release all such payments and the arrears thereof in the light of the decision rendered in W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2002. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The writ petitioner, although was recommended for appointment in the pay of Rs.240-396/- but he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. The writ petitioner made representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand on 27.12.2002 for consideration of his case in the scale of Rs.240-396/- with effect from 13.09.1980. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest forwarded his representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum- Chairman, (High Level Coordinating Committee) vide his letter dated 13.05.2003 for deciding his real position. The writ petitioner made representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand on 27.12.2002 for consideration of his case in the scale of Rs.240-396/- with effect from 13.09.1980. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest forwarded his representation to the Chief Conservator of Forest-cum- Chairman, (High Level Coordinating Committee) vide his letter dated 13.05.2003 for deciding his real position. Thereafter, a committee was constituted by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 14.10.2003 for consideration of writ petitioner’s representation under the Chairmanship of Regional Chief conservator of Forests, Ranchi. The committee, in its meeting dated 17.04.2005, considered the case of the writ petitioner and recommended for grant of pay scale of Rs.240-396/- to the writ petitioner, as would appear from letter dated 25.06.2006 (annexure-5 to the writ petition). But the aforesaid benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 240-396/- was not granted in favour of the writ petitioner even in spite of the aforesaid recommendation made by the committee. The writ petitioner raised objection. His objection was considered and was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2012 on the ground that the writ petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 13.09.1980 on his own wish and it is only after lapse of 22 years objection application has been filed questioning his appointment in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- and hence, on the ground of delay, the aforesaid application was rejected. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 08.08.2012, approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising the plea that actually his case was recommended for appointment in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but without seeking any willingness/option, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. The further plea was taken that the Department itself considered the appointment of the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- to be incorrect and, therefore, on the representation of the writ petitioner, a committee was constituted on 14.10.2003, wherein recommendation was made to take the services of the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. The writ petitioner also took plea that the aforesaid committee was constituted on 14.10.2003 and due recommendation to that effect was made by the committee, as such, there was no reason for the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2012 in rejecting such application on the ground of delay. The writ petitioner also took plea that the aforesaid committee was constituted on 14.10.2003 and due recommendation to that effect was made by the committee, as such, there was no reason for the respondent authorities in passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2012 in rejecting such application on the ground of delay. The learned Single Judge has considered the submission of the writ petitioner as also the respondent and found the writ petition fit to be allowed on the following grounds :- (i) The respondents authority suo motu cannot change the scale of the petitioner and force him to get appointment in the scale of Rs.220-315/- and the respondents authority are duty bound to consider the fact that as per the merit list, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered in the scale of Rs.240-396/-. (ii) In similar circumstances, being aggrieved by the act of the respondents, one Arti Mitra Nee Das has moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2002 and this Court vide order dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure- 15) has quashed the order of the respondents and consequently, vide order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure- 15/1), the respondents have restored the position of the petitioner, therein and the case of petitioner ought to be considered afresh at par with petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 161 of 2002. (iii) It appears that the respondents have denied the stand taken by the petitioner on the ground that though, the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-, but since the scale available to him to the post of Lower Division Clerk was the same which was available to the LDC of the Divisional Cadre, therefore the petitioner cannot raise any grievance of different cadres. However, this stand of the respondents does not stand to reasons tempered with law. (iv) Petitioner has taken reasonable, plausible and cogent ground for challenging the impugned order vide memo dated 08.08.2012, as contained in Annexure-13 to this application by which the claim of the petitioner for seniority and pay scale has been rejected on the legally untenable grounds, not germane to the case in hand. On the aforesaid grounds, the writ petition was allowed by quashing and setting aside the Memo dated 08.08.2012. The State of Jharkhand, being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is before this Court by filing intra-court appeal against the impugned order. 6. Mr. On the aforesaid grounds, the writ petition was allowed by quashing and setting aside the Memo dated 08.08.2012. The State of Jharkhand, being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is before this Court by filing intra-court appeal against the impugned order. 6. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that once the appointment which was made in favour of the writ petitioner on 13.09.1980, which the writ petitioner had accepted without any objection even though he was appointed in the lesser pay scale i.e. Rs.220-315/-. As such, once accepted the offer of appointment, it was not available to the writ petitioner to question the action which arose on 13.09.1980 by making application on 27.12.2002. The plea has been taken by the State appellant that the appointment which has been accepted by the writ petitioner fairly for a period of about 22 years, cannot be allowed to be agitated after lapse of such delay. But, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and merely considered the fact that while the writ petitioner was selected for appointment in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-, the State under which authority, appointed the writ petitioner in the lesser pay scale i.e. Rs. 220-315/- which was without any option given by the writ petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality and hence, the same may be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that it is not available to the State Government to take the plea of inordinate delay counting it from the date of appointment i.e., from 13.09.1980 when the writ petitioner was appointed as Routine Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-, since it is the State respondent who constituted a committee, meeting of which was held on 17.04.2005, which recommended for grant of pay scale of Rs.240-396/- in favour of the writ petitioner, as would appear from Annexure-5 appended to the writ petition, obtained under Right to Information, Act. It has been submitted that from perusal of letter dated 25.06.2006, it would be evident that the respondent authorities have accepted the fact that a wrong has been committed in granting the lesser pay scale of Rs.220-315/- in favour of the writ petitioner instead of Rs.240-396/-. Further submission has been made that in the similar facts and circumstances of the case, with respect to one Arati Mitra Nee Das, in whose case also the lesser pay scale was granted, had moved to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.161 of 2002 and this Court vide order dated 21.04.2009 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) quashed the order and consequently, vide order dated 10.12.2009, the respondents have restored the position of the petitioner therein and, therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is also fit to be considered in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 161 of 2002. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. This Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed facts as per the pleading made on behalf of the parties before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned order. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was appointed provisionally sometime in the year 1979 and was working under the Department of the respondents and while working as such, in the year 1980, a departmental examination was conducted. The writ petitioner participated therein and after considering him eligible and fit, he was selected for the post of Circle Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. The writ petitioner was ranked 11 in the merit list of Circle Lower Division Clerk which was prepared after taking the interview by the selection committee so constituted for the purpose and a list of 15 persons was published as per the roster. Six candidates were appointed in the Social Engineering Circle, Ranchi out of 15 selected candidates as per the roster. The candidates whose names stood at Sl. Nos. 7 to 10 in the merit list, were kept reserved in the panel. Six candidates were appointed in the Social Engineering Circle, Ranchi out of 15 selected candidates as per the roster. The candidates whose names stood at Sl. Nos. 7 to 10 in the merit list, were kept reserved in the panel. One candidate belonging to the general category and one candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe were appointed on request being made from the South Circle, Ranchi (now Chaibasa) and accordingly, the name of the writ petitioner, which stood at Sl. No.11 in the merit list and one Smt. Farida Lakra, whose name stood at Sl. No.13, were also recommended and sent for the post of Lower Division Circle Assistant vide letter dated 24.07.1980 but the writ petitioner was not appointed in the South Circle, Ranchi. The writ petitioner, however, was issued a letter dated 10.03.1980 asking him to join in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-, even though the writ petitioner was selected after following all due procedure in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-i.e., to the post of Lower Division Assistant, but he was forced to get appointment as Lower Division Clerk having the lesser pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. The writ petitioner, having no option, accepted the offer of appointment dated 13.09.1980 in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- even though he was recommended for the post of Lower Division Assistant having the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. It also transpires from the record that one Arvind Kumar whose merit position was at Sl. No.12, i.e., after the writ petitioner who was at Sl. No.11 in the merit list, was given appointment in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- to the post of Lower Division Assistant. Thus, the writ petitioner has made out a case of hostile discrimination on the ground that the person whose name was below in the merit list, i.e., Arvind Kumar, who was at Sl. No.12, was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- leaving apart the case of the writ petitioner who was at Sl. No.11 in the merit list. The writ petitioner made due representation on 27.12.2002 for consideration of his case in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- to be granted with effect from 13.09.1980 stating therein the entire fact and the reason questioning the discrimination. No.11 in the merit list. The writ petitioner made due representation on 27.12.2002 for consideration of his case in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- to be granted with effect from 13.09.1980 stating therein the entire fact and the reason questioning the discrimination. The respondent authorities, after getting such representation, constituted a committee meeting of which was convened on 17.04.2005 in which the case of the writ petitioner was recommended for grant of pay scale of Rs.240-396/-, as would appear from Annexure-5 dated 25.06.2006 appended to the writ petition. It appears from the minutes of proceeding that the respondent authorities have admitted that fault was committed and the writ petitioner was wrongly given the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- and, as such, due recommendation was made for its rectification by granting him the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but no action was taken by the authorities after the aforesaid recommendation. It further appears from letter dated 21.02.2009, as under Annexure-6 to the writ petition, that an enquiry was conducted and in consequence thereof a report was submitted wherein also the committee has reported that the wrong has been committed by granting lesser pay scale in favour of the writ petitioner. The respondent authorities instead of passing a positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner, rejected his claim vide order dated 08.08.2012. Thereafter, one interlocutory application being I.A. No.3436 of 2012 was filed seeking permission to amend the prayer made in the original writ petition for challenging the order dated 08.08.2012 also. The aforesaid interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2012 directing the petitioner to file amended writ petition. Thereafter, amended writ petition was filed. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents where the plea was taken that once the writ petitioner accepted the appointment which was granted in his favour on 13.09.1980, he cannot be allowed to reopen the matter after lapse of fairly a long period. The State raised serious objection in reopening the issue at the behest of the writ petitioner by filing writ petition, which was already settled sometime in the year 1980. The State raised serious objection in reopening the issue at the behest of the writ petitioner by filing writ petition, which was already settled sometime in the year 1980. The writ court appreciated the rival submissions and considered the fact that due recommendation was made wherein the authority itself has accepted that wrong has been committed as also has taken into consideration the order passed with respect to another employee namely, Arati Mitra Nee Das in W.P.(S) No.161 of 2002 and quashed the order of the respondents. 10. This Court, on the basis of the submission which was recorded hereinabove, is required to answer, in the given facts of the case - Whether it will be treated to be raising an issue after a long period when the State authorities itself constituted a committee, which has submitted its report on 25.06.2006 and the communication dated 21.02.2009 issued under the signature of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi addressed to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Personnel and Human Resource Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi as under Annexure-6 to the writ petition? The second question required to be answered is – Whether on the given facts of the case the writ petitioner be ceased to raise the issue of his wrong placement in the pay scale as on the date of appointment without his option, is contrary to his selection based upon the due process? 11. It is not in dispute as has been referred hereinabove, the writ petitioner while serving in the Department, participated in the departmental examination for appointment on the post of Lower Division Assistant. The Selection Committee recommended the names of 15 persons by preparing a panel, merit-wise. The name of the writ petitioner reflects in the said merit list at Sl. No.11. It is not in dispute that the post of Lower Division Assistant is having the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. It is also not in dispute since specific stand has been taken by the writ petitioner in the writ petition but no rebuttal reply has been given in the counter affidavit pertaining to one Arvind Kumar, whose name stood at Sl. No.12 of the merit list, was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- while the name of the writ petitioner was at Sl No.11 and he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. No.12 of the merit list, was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- while the name of the writ petitioner was at Sl No.11 and he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-. However, explanation has been furnished by the State that due to observance of the roster system, the person whose name was at Sl. No.12 was appointed leaving apart the writ petitioner who happens to be under general category. It requires to refer herein that the State authority has not brought on record any document showing the roster system prevalent during the relevant time. It is also not available in the pleading made on behalf of the State that which roster system they have followed. However, the plea has been taken that the writ petitioner, on its own, had accepted the offer of appointment in the lesser pay scale. 12. This Court, on the basis of such submission of accepting the offer of appointment, is having no doubt that if any option is being sought for from one or the other public servant for acceptance of offer of appointment and if such public servant is offering its option for appointment to such post, once option is exercised, it is not available for such employee to raise objection contrary to such option. This Court, considering the fact that the State is taking the plea about acceptance of offer of appointment, directed the State to produce document/application showing the options offered to the writ petitioner for acceptance for the post of Lower Division Clerk which is having lesser pay scale, as would appear from order dated 16.08.2021. Although, affidavits have been filed stating therein that the writ petitioner has given option, as would appear from affidavit dated 06.10.2021, but when the concerned authority was directed to bring on record letter of willingness, no such document was produced which led this Court to call upon the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to participate in the court proceeding on 23.12.2021, as would appear from order dated 14.12.2021. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has shown his ignorance about issuance of such letter and subsequent to the appearance, an affidavit has been filed on 24.12.2021 wherein it has specifically been stated that no such document showing option of acceptance of appointment in lesser pay scale made by the petitioner, is available on record. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow :- “2. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereinbelow :- “2. That on the basis of the letter dated 24.7.1980 the statement was made that options were invited and on that basis they were appointed as L.D.C. and the said letter has been enclosed as Annexure – A 14 series at page 75 to 77 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 1.10.2021. However, the option applications could not be found in the records/file.” Therefore, it is the admitted position that the writ petitioner has not exercised its option for acceptance of lesser pay scale. Before the writ court as also before this Court argument has been made about the option exercised by the writ petitioner for accepting the pay scale and that once the writ petitioner has exercised his option, the writ petitioner ceases to raise this issue. On the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which is quoted and referred hereinabove, wherein the Department has failed to produce any application showing option offered by the writ petitioner, this Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the argument about exercising option by the writ petitioner for acceptance of lesser pay scale is fit to be rejected on the basis of non-availability of any such application exercising option. Accordingly rejected. 13. The other issue which was raised by the State appellant that once the offer of appointment was accepted on 13.09.1980, the writ petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the issue after long lapse of period. The State appellant has considered the cause of action from the date of appointment i.e., 13.09.1980, but the State authorities cannot be allowed to take the date of cause of action from 13.09.1980, for the reason that when the writ petitioner made representation for consideration of his case, a committee was constituted, meeting of which was convened on 17.04.2005, wherein the committee has given specific recommendation in favour of the writ petitioner referring therein that the writ petitioner ought to have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but due to wrong committed by the concerned authority, he has been placed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/-, therefore, recommendation has been made to place him in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. The committee has made such recommendation on the basis of the fact that one Shri Arvind Kumar, who was below the writ petitioner in the merit list, has been granted the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- and therefore, the writ petitioner is also entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-, which would be apparent from minutes of meeting dated 17.04.2005, annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Subsequent thereto, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest has also issued a letter being letter No. 142 dated 21.02.2009 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) wherein also recommendation has been made by him to grant the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-, in favour of the writ petitioner, on the ground that the person below the writ petitioner since was granted such pay scale and as such, the writ petitioner is also entitled to get the same scale. It further appears from the said communication that the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest has approved the recommendation made by the authorities as was recommended vide minutes of meeting dated 17.04.2005. Therefore, the consideration of the case of the writ petitioner even after his appointment on 13.09.1980 was made on 17.04.2005, as per Annexure-5 and thereafter on 21.02.2009 as per Annexure-6. It further requires to refer herein that the State authorities have filed counter affidavit but no rebuttal reply has been given with respect to Annexure-5 and Annexure-6. Therefore, the issue of cause of action to be counted from the date of appointment i.e., from 13.09.1980, as has been pleaded on behalf of the State appellant, is not fit to be accepted in view of the fact that the authorities constituted a committee much after the date of appointment i.e., on 14.10.2003, as per Annuxure-5 and Annexure-6 respectively appended to the writ petition, according to our considered view, once the State authorities have given a consideration on the case of the writ petitioner, which was lastly given on 21.02.2009, the cause of action will be treated to have counted from 21.02.2009 and not from 13.09.1980. 14. Since the writ petition has been filed in the year 2011, therefore, this Court is not hesitant in holding that the writ petition is not barred by the principle of delay and laches. 15. 14. Since the writ petition has been filed in the year 2011, therefore, this Court is not hesitant in holding that the writ petition is not barred by the principle of delay and laches. 15. This Court, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove and after going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference due to the following reasons :- Admittedly, the writ petitioner was selected in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but ignoring his seniority, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- without seeking his option, therefore, if the learned Single Judge has reached to the conclusion that the very appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner in lesser pay scale contrary to his merit position is not justified, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. The appointment of the writ petitioner in the lesser pay scale of Rs.220-315/- instead of Rs.240-396/- since was made without seeking any option from the writ petitioner, therefore, such appointment will be nothing but contrary to the process of selection of the writ petitioner and it is settled that if any illegality has been committed which is contrary to the process/regulation, the same has to be rectified the moment it comes to the notice. In the instant case, admittedly the writ petitioner was selected in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/- but due to some extraneous reason, he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- ignoring his position in the seniority list while the person below him in the merit list was granted the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. Therefore, the offer of appointment made in favour of the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- is nothing but contrary to the decision of the selection committee which made decision to appoint the writ petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.240-396/-. Exactly the same view has been taken by the committee in its meeting dated 17.04.2005, as appended Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also considered the order passed by this Court in the case of one Arti Mitra Nee Das in whose case also similar discrepancy was there, in consequence of the same, she had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.161 of 2002. The learned Single Judge has also considered the order passed by this Court in the case of one Arti Mitra Nee Das in whose case also similar discrepancy was there, in consequence of the same, she had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.161 of 2002. The Co-ordinate learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.04.2009, has quashed the order by which the concerned writ petitioner was given the lesser pay scale by restoring her position. The learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid order and taking it into the similar facts which is involved in this case, has also found one of the reasons to allow the writ petition, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to be an error, for the reason, if similar treatment has been given in favour of one of the co-employee, the same cannot be denied to the other similarly situated employee on the principle of position of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others [ (2015) 1 SCC 347 ], wherein it has been laid down that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly and merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. The relevant paragraph is of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference :- “22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.” 16. On the basis of the reason as aforesaid and the discussions made hereinabove, according to our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 17. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 18. Pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) I agree.