RANCHI, India, April 24 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 24:

I.A. No. 15401 of 2025

1. This I.A. seeking condonation of delay of 71 days is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 791 of 2025 With I.A. No. 4227 of 2026

2. Heard Mr Krishna Murari, the learned counsel for the appellants and Ram Prakash Sao, the respondent-writ petitioner, who appears in person.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants almost succeeded in persuading us to dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal based on a subsequent order passed by the appellants. Were we to pass this order, we would have grievously erred and caused prejudice to the petitioner, who appears in person. Therefore, we do not appreciate such an approach of trying to secure an order from the Court in haste without disclosing true and correct facts.

4. In this case, the respondent Ram Prakash Sao instituted W.P. (S) No.5446 of 2024 seeking retirement and other benefits consequent upon his retirement from the Office of the appellants herein. When this petition came up for hearing on 03.10.2024, the counsel on behalf of the appellants made a statement that the case of the respondent herein, i.e. Ram Prakash Sao, was fully covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases. He, therefore, submitted to the Court that the appellants herein would have no objection if the respondent's writ petition were disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No.1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases.

5. Paragraph 4 of the learned Single Judge's order dated 03.10.2024 disposing of W.P.(S) No.5446 of 2024 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -

"4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that this case is fully covered by the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1229 of 2023 and other analogous cases."

6. Having made the above statement, the present appellants should not have instituted this Letters Patent Appeal to challenge the order dated 03.10.2024. The LPA, it appears, was preferred because the appellants did not comply with the learned Single Judge's order in letter and spirit, forcing the respondent to file a Contempt petition. In an attempt to avoid the consequences of the Contempt petition, the appellants have passed an order denying relief to the respondent (original petitioner).

7. After denying reliefs, I.A. No. 4227 of 2026 was filed and the learned counsel for the appellants made a submission that since the appellants, herein, have fully complied with the learned Single Judge's order dated 03.10.2024, this appeal may be disposed of as infructuous or the appellants may be granted leave to withdraw this appeal in view of the subsequent development i.e. the order declining the relief to the respondent (original petitioner)

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwdevDuIeqAOOlw6g74E7ibBgVGRTtCpSt8cCWCyHLHt&caseno=LPA/791/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010022942025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.