ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. This intra-court appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner, appellant herein, challenging the order dated 3.8.2022, whereby the writ petition WP(S) No. 3399 of 2020, filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petitioner-appellant was appointed as Account Assistant on contract on 8.5.2008 under the respondent Authority and he was being regularly paid honorarium. The petitioner was transferred to the Department of District Rural Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as DRDA), Dhanbad vide letter dated 24.7.2019 and was relieved from Govindpur. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the wife of the petitioner fell ill and the petitioner also, for which, he had to visit Vellore for treatment. The petitioner applied for leave on 26.7.2019, but DRDA, Dhanbad i.e. respondent No. 5 directed the writ petitioner vide letter dated 3.8.2019 and 17.8.2019 to join immediately. On the ground of illness, the writ petitioner prayed for time vide letter dated 8.8.2019. The DRDA, Dhanbad-respondent No. 5 issued a show cause to the writ petitioner on 21.8.2019 as to why his services should not be terminated, to which the writ petitioner prayed for sometime. Respondent No. 5 constituted a Medical Board for ascertaining the medical condition of the petitioner on 28.8.2019 and vide report dated 30.8.2019, the petitioner was declared fit by the Medical Board. Respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 12.09.2019 directed the petitioner to join within twelve hours with condition that if he does not join within twelve hours, his services will be terminated. The writ petitioner received the said letter dated 12.9.2019 on 18.9.2019 and by that time, the petitioner was already dismissed vide letter No. 994 dated 14.9.2019. The petitioner approached this Court in WPS No. 3399 of 2020 challenging the letter dated 14.9.2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, resulting in filing of this appeal. 4. Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant argues that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application taking into consideration that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual and since the contract was not renewed, the impugned order of termination is justified. He submits that the said finding is absolutely erroneous on the facts as the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. He submits that the said finding is absolutely erroneous on the facts as the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time. He further submits that the mere fact that the petitioner had been working since the year 2008 continuously suggests that the contract was being extended from time to time and a person who is working since the year 2008 cannot be removed by the State in the manner in which it has been done. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the record, we find that admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on 8.5.2008. Immediately before passing the impugned order dated 14.9.2019, the petitioner was working, thus it is clear that the petitioner was working for ten years. The contract was for one year and it was extended from time to time, which led to continuation of the services of the writ petitioner for ten long years. The learned Single Judge also found that the last extension of contract was made vide Memo No. 24 dated 6.1.2018; period of which was 6.1.2018 to 5.1.2019, but thereafter there was no written extension. However, it is an admitted fact that on 24.7.2019, the writ petitioner was transferred. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was transferred from MGNREGA Cell and was directed to join DRDA on 03.08.2019. This action of the respondent clearly suggests that there was implied extension of the contract of service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for leave on the ground of ill health. 6. At the instance of respondent No. 5, the writ petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and the petitioner was found fit on 30.8.2019. Respondent No. 5 admittedly issued a letter on 12.9.2019 directing the writ petitioner to join his services within twelve hours. This action of respondent, fortifies the fact that respondents from their side extended the period of contract. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that letter dated 12.9.2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to join within twelve hours was received by the petitioner on 18.09.2019 and in the meantime, he was dismissed on 14.9.2019. The writ petitioner in paragraph-20 of the writ petition has made specific assertion that the direction of respondent No. 5 as contained in Letter No. 994 dated 14.9.2019 asking him to join his service within twelve hours was received by him on 18.9.2019. The writ petitioner in paragraph-20 of the writ petition has made specific assertion that the direction of respondent No. 5 as contained in Letter No. 994 dated 14.9.2019 asking him to join his service within twelve hours was received by him on 18.9.2019. In the counter affidavit, filed by respondents, this assertion has not been denied. 7. So far as medical condition is concerned, the report of Medical Board has been annexed by respondent in the counter affidavit. The Medical Board submitted a report with opinion that the petitioner is fit to resume his duty. In the first page of the medical report, we find that the Medical Board had taken into consideration the report of the petitioner issued by the Hospital of Chennai dated 20.6.2019 wherein from MRI it was found that there is evidence of spondylitis changes at C4-C5 cervical spine with mild bulge and he was advised for conservative treatment. This report of Medical Board, which is at the instance of respondent, suggests that the plea taken by the writ petitioner that he was not medically fit, was not a false plea. 8. We further find that the petitioner was given twelve hours’ time to join his services. As taken note earlier, the petitioner received the letter dated 12.9.2019, whereby respondent No. 5 directed the writ petitioner to join his services within twelve hours. The time frame of twelve hours given by the respondent No. 5, according to us, is unreasonable. 9. From what has been held above, we find that the learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant, holding that there was no extension of service. Admittedly the petitioner has been working since the year 2008 and was even transferred and was directed to join after the last order of extension, which suggests that there was extension by implication. 10. In that view, we find merit in this Letters patent Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3399 of 2020. Consequently, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant is also allowed. Impugned letter dated 14.9.2019 of the writ petition is also quashed. 11. 10. In that view, we find merit in this Letters patent Appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3399 of 2020. Consequently, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant is also allowed. Impugned letter dated 14.9.2019 of the writ petition is also quashed. 11. The writ petitioner is directed to give his joining before respondent No. 5 within two weeks from the date of this order along with a copy of this order, who will accept the joining of the writ petitioner.