SETTING ASIDE EX-PARTE WRIT ORDERS RENDERED WITHOUT AFFORDING STATE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

The Respondent, Mahendra Mahto, was appointed on compassionate grounds after August 31, 2005. He filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 13344/2024) seeking to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme instead of the New Pension Scheme, arguing that his appointment process began before the new scheme's enforcement.

On September 10, 2024, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the government’s rejection order and directing the authorities to offer the Respondent an option between the two schemes.

The State of Bihar (Appellants) challenged this order via the present Letters Patent Appeal, contending they were not permitted to file a counter-affidavit to defend the matter.

1. Whether the order of the learned Single Judge is sustainable given that the Appellants were not afforded an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.

2. Whether the delay of 91 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal should be condoned.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), and the procedural requirement that a State respondent must be afforded a fair opportunity to file a counter-affidavit to adequately present its defense before a final adjudication on merits.

The Court also exercised its discretionary power to condone delay under the Limitation Act through I.A. No. 01/2025.

The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge had allowed the original writ petition without receiving a counter-affidavit from the State authorities.

During the appeal, the Respondent’s counsel conceded that no counter-affidavit had been filed in the lower proceedings and did not object to a remand.

The Court reasoned that the absence of a formal response deprived the Appellants of their right to defend the case appropriately.

Regarding the procedural delay in filing the appeal, the Court found the explanation for the 91-day delay acceptable, noting the lack of serious objection from the Respondent.

Consequently, the Court determined that the matter must be reheard after the completion of pleadings to ensure a decision on merits based on a full record.

The delay of 91 days was condoned via I.A. No. 01/2025.

The matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge with directions to accept the Appellants' counter-affidavit and the Respondent’s rejoinder, thereafter hearing the case afresh on its merits.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.