ORDER : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 8188 of 2019 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing the instant appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8188 of 2019 is allowed and delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 550 of 2019 6. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 28th September, 2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3864 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner for release of salary with interest from the date of appointment/joining i.e. 03.12.2013 till date as also direction upon the respondents to take work from the petitioner which was orally stopped from June, 2014 and approve the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment, has been allowed. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder: It is the case of the writ petitioner that initially his father, namely, Anup Lal Paswan, was employed in the District Collectorate and subsequently his services was placed under District Rural Development Agency (in short ‘DRDA’), Godda and while working as such died in harness on 08.02.2013. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, which was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed vide Office Order No. 84/2013 dated 28.11.2013 on Class IV post and posted in the office of DRDA, Godda, where he joined on 03.12.2013 and started to discharge his duty, but his salary was not released and as such he approached before the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance but it did not evoke any response. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3864 of 2014 seeking direction upon the respondents to release the salary with interest from the date of appointment/joining i.e. 03.12.2013 till date as also to take work from the petitioner which was orally stopped from June, 2014 and approve the appointment of the petitioner from the initial date of appointment and extend all consequential benefits. The State had appeared before the writ Court and contested the case by filing counter affidavit stating therein that service of the father of the writ petitioner since was not approved by the DRDA as such appointment on compassionate ground is not in accordance with law, reason being that, the appointment on the compassionate ground is required to be given in case employee having been appointed in the substantive capacity and died in harness, but, herein, the father of the writ petitioner since was appointed in DRDA, which was not substantive in nature and as such the writ petitioner, although, was provided appointment on compassionate ground but subsequently when it was detected that such appointment could not be given in favour of writ petitioner, he was asked orally not to discharge duty as also his salary was stopped. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of rival submission advanced on behalf of parties, allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner since his initial date of joining and extend all consequential benefit, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State. 8. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned S.C. I appearing for the appellants-State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that even though father of the writ petitioner was not in service holding the substantive post, which is the pre-requisite for consideration of case of dependents of such employee who died in harness to provide appointment on compassionate ground. Herein, since the father of the writ petitioner was appointed under DRDA where his appointment was not in substantive capacity, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground but the authority concerned has granted such appointment, however, the same was not approved by the concerned authority, therefore, salary was stopped and was asked not to discharge his duty, but the learned Single Judge without considering the fact that appointment on compassionate ground is only required to be given in case of death of bread earner i.e., the deceased employee, if such appointment has been made on substantive capacity. Therefore, non-consideration of these aspects of the matter by the learned Single Judge is absolutely incorrect, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality and as such the same is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the documents available on record and finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 10. Admitted fact in this case is that initially father of the writ petitioner was employed in the District Collectorate and subsequently his services was placed under District Rural Development Agency, Godda but no separate appointment letter was issued posting the father of the writ petitioner at DRDA, Godda and statement to that effect has been made by the writ petitioner at paragraph 3 of the rejoinder to counter affidavit dated 19.02.2015 filed on behalf of petitioner, which has not been rebutted by the respondents-State by filing reply to the rejoinder to counter affidavit. While working as such, the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 08.02.2013. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted an application for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment, which was considered by the District Compassionate Committee and accordingly, appointment letter was issued vide Office Order No. 84/2013 dated 28.11.2013 in Class IV post, as would be evident from Annexure 1 to the writ petition. On perusal of appointment letter, it is evident that appointment has been made in favour of petitioner on due recommendation of District Appointment Committee in anticipation of the approval by the Managing Board and in pursuance to such recommendation, the same was accepted and thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and started to discharge his duty. On perusal of appointment letter, it is evident that appointment has been made in favour of petitioner on due recommendation of District Appointment Committee in anticipation of the approval by the Managing Board and in pursuance to such recommendation, the same was accepted and thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and started to discharge his duty. After appointment of the writ petitioner, an objection was raised on behalf of respondent-department that the appointment made in favour of writ petitioner on compassionate ground cannot be said to be in consonance with the scheme since the father of the writ petitioner was appointees of DRDA, which cannot be said to be appointment on the substantive post. Further, it requires to refer herein that State although has preferred appeal but no such document in support of the fact that the father of the writ petitioner was the original appointee of the DRDA has been placed before this Court and as such it is required for this Court to decide this issue first as to whether appointment of the father of the writ petitioner was under DRDA or under District Collectorate? 11. If the appointment of the father of the writ petitioner was originally with DRDA in that circumstance what has been contended by the State-authority cannot be said to be incorrect but if the appointment of the father of the writ petitioner was firstly in the District Collectorate then what ground has been taken for negating the claim of the writ petitioner will be said to be not proper. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to first assess the nature of appointment of the father of the writ petitioner. As per the pleading made by the writ petitioner more particularly statement made at paragraph 3 of the rejoinder to counter affidavit dated 19.02.2015, wherein statement has been made that father of the writ petitioner was initially appointed in District Collectorate and subsequently, his services was placed under DRDA, Godda. The father of the writ petitioner while working under the DRDA died in harness and thereafter application was submitted by the writ petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was forwarded by the District Appointment Committee and his case was found fit for appointment on compassionate ground. The father of the writ petitioner while working under the DRDA died in harness and thereafter application was submitted by the writ petitioner for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was forwarded by the District Appointment Committee and his case was found fit for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the District Appointment Committee has recommended the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. In pursuance thereto, he was appointed vide appointment letter dated 28.11.2013 and started to discharge his duty. 12. It is evident from the appointment letter dated 28.11.2013, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, that nowhere it has been referred that the father of the writ petitioner was originally an appointee of DRDA, rather, it has been stated therein that while working in DRDA, Godda, father of the writ petitioner died in harness. 13. It is further evident from the pleading made in rejoinder to counter affidavit dated 19.02.2015 filed in the writ petition wherein specific statement has been made about placement of his service from the District Collectorate to DRDA, Godda but the aforesaid pleading has not been rebutted by the State-respondent. 14. When this Court has asked from the learned counsel appearing for the State-appellant as to why the original appointment letter issued in favour of father of writ petitioner has not been brought on record since State authority are the custodian of such document, Mr. Saboo, learned S.C. I appearing for the State, has submitted that no such document is available with the department. Such statement made on behalf of State-appellant clearly goes to suggest that appeal has been filed without examining the nature of appointment of the father of writ petitioner. This Court has failed to understand why such appeal has been filed by the State in absence of required document, which has got bearing in deciding the issue. 15. It further appears from the annexures annexed with writ petition that the dependents of the employee, working under DRDA, who have died in harness, have been given appointment on compassionate ground, as would be evident from Annexure 3 appended to the writ petition. 16. 15. It further appears from the annexures annexed with writ petition that the dependents of the employee, working under DRDA, who have died in harness, have been given appointment on compassionate ground, as would be evident from Annexure 3 appended to the writ petition. 16. This Court, on the basis of discussions made hereinabove, is of the view that since the State has failed to produce the original appointment letter of the father of the writ petitioner and has also not rebutted the statement made at paragraph 3 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 19.02.2015 filed in the writ petition, as referred hereinabove, the original appointment of the father of the writ petitioner cannot be said to have made in DRDA rather since the service of the father of the writ petitioner was placed in the DRDA from District Collectorate, therefore, the this Court is not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that the appointment made in favour of father of writ petitioner was originally under District Collectorate, Godda and subsequently, his services was placed under DRDA, Godda, where while discharging his duty he died in harness. 17. The compassionate appointment committee has considered all these facts in entirety and thereafter recommended the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been accepted by the appointing authority and thereafter writ petitioner started to discharge his duty. 18. Further, plea has been taken that the nature of appointment made in favour of writ petitioner was temporary but the question arises as to when the appointment on compassionate ground is being made under the scheme in vogue, during the time of death of the father of the writ petitioner, under circular dated 5.10.1991 wherein there is no provision of appointment to be made on compassionate ground on temporary basis and as such merely by making reference of any letter showing the nature of appointment made in favour of writ petitioner to be temporary, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be considered to be temporary rather it will be considered to be permanent in nature taking into consideration the scheme in vogue which does not make any provision to make appointment on compassionate ground on temporary basis. 19. 19. The learned Single Judge, considering the fact in entirety and taking into consideration the fact that the appointment made in favour of writ petitioner was based upon the recommendation of the District Compassionate Committee as also the other dependent of the deceased-employee even working under DRDA have been given appointment on compassionate ground in DRDA, allowed the writ petition directing to approve the appointment of the petitioner since the initial date of joining and extend all consequential benefit, which according to our considered view requires no interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, the appeal fails, and is dismissed. 21. Consequent upon disposal of the appeal, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 8189 of 2019 stands disposed of.