JUDGMENT : I.A. No.10572 of 2019 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 76 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, 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 76 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 10572 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No.768 of 2019 5. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by interfering with the order dated 02.02.2012 so far as it relates to the petitioner whereunder the respondents have changed the date of joining of the writ petitioner from 28.05.1985 to 01.08.1993 and subsequently reduced the pay scale of the petitioner. 6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that in pursuance of advertisement, the writ petitioner had applied for the Grade-III post against the vacancies for different posts notified by Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro. Vide letter dated 05.02.1983, the writ petitioner was called for interview by the Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner appeared in the interview and was selected. The name of the writ petitioner was listed at top of the list under Grade-III category. The petitioner was only candidate in SC category in the list. On 04.05.1985, a separate office order was issued with respect to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts under the signature of Deputy Registrar of the University and on its perusal, it transpires that the name of the petitioner figures at serial no. 1. The petitioner was directed to report to the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro latest by the end of 25.05.1985. Accordingly, the writ petitioner joined the post on 28.05.1985. The service book of the petitioner was opened, relevant portion of the service book is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 1. The petitioner was directed to report to the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro latest by the end of 25.05.1985. Accordingly, the writ petitioner joined the post on 28.05.1985. The service book of the petitioner was opened, relevant portion of the service book is appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The date of joining of the writ petitioner is reflected in the service book as 28.05.1985. But, for pay fixation in pursuance to the recommendation of the 5th Pay revision, a chart has been issued by the Vinoba Bhave University in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 19 wherein the date of joining has been referred as 01.08.1993. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, filed several representations before the Principal Bokaro Steel City College. The Principal, Bokaro Steel City College vide its letter dated 01.07.2005 requested the member Secretary, Time Bound Promotion Committee that the date of joining of the petitioner is 28.05.1985. Again the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College by letter dated 17.01.2007 requested the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University mentioning the fact that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 28.05.1985 but incorrectly it has been shown in the chart as 01.08.1993. The grievance having not been redressed, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2013. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the date of joining mentioned in the different documents, has allowed the writ petition while quashing the order dated 02.02.2012 against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Vinoba Bhave University. 7. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in passing the impugned order since the impugned order is without consideration of the fact that the post to which the writ petitioner was appointed, was not sanctioned in the year 1985 rather the post was sanctioned with effect from 01.08.1993, therefore, the length of service of the writ petitioner is to be counted with effect from 01.08.1993 and not from 28.05.1985, but, according to her, learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter, therefore, the instant appeal. Mrs. Mrs. Choudhary, learned counsel, has submitted by referring to letter dated 11.10.2019, appended to I.A. No.10572/2019 as Annexure-1, that this appeal has been preferred on instruction of the State Government, as would appear from the aforesaid letter. 8. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appears for the State of Jharkhand, and she does not dispute about the instruction having been issued by the State of Jharkhand instructing the concerned University, the appellant herein, to prefer the instant appeal. No other argument has been made regarding legality and propriety of the impugned order. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-University as also learned counsel for the State. 10. The undisputed fact in this case is that in pursuance to the advertisement published on 03.12.1981, the writ petitioner had applied in which he was declared successful. He was appointed against Grade-III post under Bokaro Steel City College, thereafter, he started discharging his duty. During the relevant time, the said college was under the control of the Ranchi University. Subsequently, after creation of the Vinoba Bhave University on bifurcation of the Ranchi University, the concerned college has come under the administrative control of the Vinoba Bhave University, during the aforesaid period, for the purpose of implementation of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, a chart was prepared in which the name of the writ petitioner has been shown at Sl. No.19 but the date of joining has been mentioned as 01.08.1993. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the change of date of joining from 28.05.1985 to 01.08.1993, made repeated representations but having not given heed to, the writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2013 questioning the decision of the Vinoba Bhave University as to on what basis the date of joining of the writ petitioner has been changed to 01.08.1993 from 28.05.1985. Vinoba Bhave University put its appearance before the learned writ court and taken the plea that the post was not sanctioned on the date when the writ petitioner was appointed and, therefore, according to the University, the post since has been sanctioned on 01.08.1993, the writ petitioner will be treated to be in service from the date when the post has been sanctioned i.e., 01.08.1993. The learned Single Judge has discarded the aforesaid submission taking into consideration the service book of the writ petitioner wherein the date of joining has been referred as 28.05.1985 as also considering the documents appended as Annexure-R/1 appended to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the University. 11. This Court, in course of argument, has put a query upon Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-University, as to why such appeal has been preferred by the University, when the State is having no grievance? She has submitted referring to one letter dated 11.10.2019, appended to I.A. No.10572/2019 filed for condonation of delay, wherein the State has instructed to file the appeal. This Court has perused the aforesaid letter and has posed a question to Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing the State of Jharkhand, that under what authority of law such letter can be issued, when under the University Act, 2000, the universities are autonomous bodies? Mrs. Singh, learned State counsel failed to give any reply on this. 12. The question arises that the State admittedly has not preferred the appeal while the State is a paying master on the basis of allocation of fund to the University and once the State has chosen to accept the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the University cannot have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. But, since this appeal has been preferred, therefore, this Court is of the view that the legality and propriety of the order impugned is required to be scrutinized. 13. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the University that the post was not sanctioned when the writ petitioner had joined service i.e., on 28.05.1985. The learned Single Judge has disbelieved the said argument going through the service book which was opened at the time of joining of the writ petitioner by the Ranchi University, as during the relevant time the concerned college was under the administrative control of said University. The Ranchi University, subsequently, has been bifurcated and a new university in the name and style has been created, i.e., Vinoba Bhave University. The service of the writ petitioner, therefore, has come under the administrative control of the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. 14. The Ranchi University, subsequently, has been bifurcated and a new university in the name and style has been created, i.e., Vinoba Bhave University. The service of the writ petitioner, therefore, has come under the administrative control of the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. 14. It cannot be disputed that once an institution, in which the employee is working, is being bifurcated and the service the such employee is falling under the newly created body, the service condition cannot be allowed to be changed. Here also, since the date of joining of the writ petitioner has been shown in the service book as 28.05.1985 which was opened at the time of joining of the writ petitioner by the Ranchi University, the same cannot be allowed to the changed by the subsequent body which has been created on bifurcation of the erstwhile body. But, the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, at the time of implementation of recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, has prepared a chart wherein the date of joining of the writ petitioner has been shown as 01.08.1993. University has given justification that as on the date of joining of the writ petitioner, i.e., on 28.05.1985, the post was not sanctioned, rather, according to the appellant-University, post has been sanctioned only on 01.08.1993 and, as such, the writ petitioner would be treated to be in service with effect from 01.08.1993. The aforesaid submission has been discarded by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the entry of date of joining in the service book as also considering the documents appended as Annexure-R/1 appended to the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 15. This Court has perused the service book and found therefrom that the date of joining of the writ petitioner has been referred as 28.05.1985. Further, the document as appended as Annexure-R-1 to the rejoinder affidavit has also been perused by us wherefrom it is evident that in the chart, under Column No.6 the post has been shown to be sanctioned with effect from 19.08.1982. 16. Mrs. Further, the document as appended as Annexure-R-1 to the rejoinder affidavit has also been perused by us wherefrom it is evident that in the chart, under Column No.6 the post has been shown to be sanctioned with effect from 19.08.1982. 16. Mrs. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University, is not in a position to dispute the content of the tabular chart, as appended as Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ petitioner wherein specifically it has been mentioned that the post on which the writ petitioner is working, has been sanctioned with effect from 19.08.1982. 17. Therefore, according to our considered view, the very ground taken by the appellant-University herein, that the post on which the writ petitioner is working having not been sanctioned as on the date of joining, i.e., on 28.05.1985, rather on 01.08.1993, is contrary to the record of the University itself since under Column No.6 the post shown to have been sanctioned/regularized with effect from 19.08.1982. 18. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect as above, has gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has also considered the entry of date of joining in the service book as also the document as appended as Annexure-R-1 of the rejoinder, wherein the post on which the writ petitioner is working has been shown to be sanctioned with effect from 19.08.1982. 19. This Court, in view of such finding based upon the document of the University concerned, is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 20. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.