ORDER : I.A. No. 1500 of 2019 1. This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 108 days. 2. Not only there is no serious opposition to this application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, this Court deems it proper to condone the delay of 108 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A. No. 1500 of 2019 is allowed. LPA No. 122 of 2019 3. W.P. (S) No. 6661 of 2007 was filed by Chandeshwar Prasad Singh and Pramod Singh with the following prayers: “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to grant pay scale to the petitioners of the post of Dressing Assistants, the post on which the petitioners have been appointed, scale which is Rs. 950-1500/- consequent revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590/-. (ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to release the arrears of difference of salary from the date of their appointment on the post of Dressing Assistant because they have been paid lesser to the scale. (iii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith give the benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme for making revision in the pay scale i.e. in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and to release the arrears of difference of salary along with interest.” 4. The respondent no. 1 was substituted in place of her husband Chandeshwar Prasad Singh who died during pendency of the writ petition. 5. The writ Court having considered the Bihar Gazette dated 13th February 1999 in which the post of Dressing Assistant finds place at serial no. 269 has held that the petitioners are entitled for pay-scale of Rs. 950-1400/- (revision pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-). 6. The writ Court has held as under: “9. 5. The writ Court having considered the Bihar Gazette dated 13th February 1999 in which the post of Dressing Assistant finds place at serial no. 269 has held that the petitioners are entitled for pay-scale of Rs. 950-1400/- (revision pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-). 6. The writ Court has held as under: “9. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on 1.6.1979 vide Order No. 94 on the post of Dressing Assistants against the vacant sanctioned posts, for which the requisition has been made by the Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department and as per the extract of the Bihar Gazette, published on 13th February, 1999 it is quite evident that the reference of the post of Dressing Assistants have been given at S. No. 269 and the corresponding existing pay scale of the said post is Rs. 950-1400 and the corresponding revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590 and by virtue of the fact that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Dressing Assistant, they are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- and the corresponding revised scale of the same is Rs. 3050-4590. 10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitur, the respondents are directed to grant pay scale to the petitioners of the post of Dressing Assistants, the post on which the petitioners have been appointed, which is Rs. 950-1500/- and the consequent revised scale of which is Rs. 3050-4590/- and further directed to release the arrears of difference of salary from the date of their appointment on the post of Dressing Assistants and are further directed to give the benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme for making revision in the pay scale i.e. in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and to release the arrears of difference of salary. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.” 7. The aforesaid direction of the writ Court has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand by filing this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court. 8. 3050-4590/- and to release the arrears of difference of salary. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.” 7. The aforesaid direction of the writ Court has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand by filing this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court. 8. A writ Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must remain at all times mindful of the consequences and cascading effects that may ensue on account of the order passed by the Court. Therefore, the writ Court is duty bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavit from the State as to whether any case at all is made out requiring interference by the Court. No doubt, the State of Jharkhand did not file a proper affidavit before the High Court and contested the matter only on the plank that ACP benefits have been granted to the writ petitioners, it was incumbent upon the writ Court to see whether the petition revealed all material facts and whether grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any law - delay and laches are well-known grounds to refuse relief. 9. The facts emerging from the materials on record are that Chandeshwar Prasad Singh who was appointed on a Class-IV post in the pay-scale of Rs. 155-190/- by virtue of the order dated 1st June 1979 passed by the Regional Director, Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi would have superannuated from service on 30th June 2010. Similarly, Pramod Singh who was also appointed on 1st June 1979 has claimed that he was appointed on the post of Dressing Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. In the writ petition a copy of which has been annexed with this Letters Patent Appeal vide Annexure-I the writ petitioners did not even whisper about the procedure through which they claim to have been appointed on the post of Dressing Assistant. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand has taken a specific objection to the claim of the writ petitioners for arrears of difference of salary in the pay-scale of Dressing Assistant and a Class-IV from the date of their initial appointment. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand has taken a specific objection to the claim of the writ petitioners for arrears of difference of salary in the pay-scale of Dressing Assistant and a Class-IV from the date of their initial appointment. The State of Jharkhand has also taken objection to the claim of the writ petitioners for the difference of salary on revision of pay under the Assured Career Progression Scheme along with interest. 10. Now a writ petition which was filed about 28 years after the writ petitioners entered into the service could not have been entertained by the writ Court to pass the aforesaid directions. The writ petitioners who accepted their appointment on a Class-IV post and worked for about 28 years cannot be permitted to raise a claim based on the office order dated 1st June 1979 by which according to them they were appointed on the post of Dressing Assistant. 11. In City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex-parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved. (b) the petition reveals all material facts. (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute. (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. (e) ex-facie barred by any laws of limitation. (b) the petition reveals all material facts. (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute. (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. (e) ex-facie barred by any laws of limitation. (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law and host of other factors. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.” 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in this case, the order dated 14th September 2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6661 of 2007 is set-aside. 13. L.P.A. No. 122 of 2019 is allowed. 14. I.A. No. 954 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3558 of 2023 for early hearing and I.A. No. 1499 of 2019 for stay of proceeding, stand disposed of.