IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.542 of 2006 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Director Animal Husbandry, Magadh Range, Gaya 4. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Kosi Range, Saharsa, 5. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, and 6. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Nawadah ……….Appellants/Respondents Versus Awadesh Kumar son of Parmeshwar Paswan, Resident of Village Karai, P.O. Lahsuna, P.S. Massaurhi, District – Patna ….Respondent/Petitioner ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. K. Ravish, J.C. to G.P. I. For the Respondents: Mr. S.H.H. Quadri, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 15th December, 2008. By an office order no. 704 dated 21st December, 1996 issued by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Koshi Range, Saharsa, services of eleven employees were terminated. The employees whose services were terminated by order dated 21st December, 1996 are: (i) Awadhesh Kumar; (ii) Prem Kumar; (iii) Niraj Kumar; (iv) Arun Kumar; (v) Anil Kumar; (vi) Mani Prasad; (vii) Balram Paswan; (viii) Prabhash Shirhari; (ix) Om Prakash Yadav; (x) Bijay Kumar 2 Paswan and; (xi) Rajendra Kishore. Four of these persons namely Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Balram Paswan challenged the aforesaid order of termination by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 5140 of 1998 before this Court. We have not referred to the case of Deven Prasad who was one of the writ petitioners in that writ petition as his services were not terminated by the same order and his case of termination has been found to be different. 2. The single judge held that Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Balram Paswan were appointed prior to 28th October, 1991 (cut off date) and, therefore, the ground set up in the termination order was non est. Consequently, the single judge by his order dated 21st September, 1999 quashed and set aside the office order dated 21st December, 1996 in so far as it related to these four persons. The state government and its functionaries challenged the said order by filing an appeal (L.P.A. No. 325 of 2000). That appeal was time barred. The Division Bench found that delay was not sufficiently explained. However, even otherwise no merit was found in the appeal. This is what the division bench observed in its order dated 6th July, 2000: “Apart from the aforesaid, even there is no merit in this appeal. Because from a bare reference to the impugned order, it would appear that prior to 28th of October, 1991, the Regional Deputy Director had the jurisdiction to make appointments. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if such appointments were made.” 3. It appears that the present respondent whose services 3 were also terminated vide office order dated 21st December, 1996, challenged the termination order in the year 2002. The single judge allowed the writ petition in terms of the order dated 21st September, 1999 passed by the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5140 of 1998 in the case of Arun Kumar and three others and the order dated 6th July, 2000 passed in Letters Patent Appeal. The order dated 15th September, 2005 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the state government. 4. The government counsel submitted and, in our view fairly, that the case of the respondent is not all different or distinct from the case of Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Baliram Paswan whose writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21st September, 1999. Once this position is admitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly identical to four other employees who were terminated by the same order, the Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in granting relief to the present respondent in the light of the order dated 21st September, 1999 passed by the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5140 of 1998. If the termination order dated 21st December, 1996 has been held to be bad in law in respect of Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Balram Paswan, for the self- same reasons, in our view, the termination of the present respondent must be held to be bad as admittedly the petitioner was also appointed before the cut off date like the other employees namely Arun Kumar, Mani Prasad, Niraj Kumar and Balram Paswan. The cut off date is 28th 4 October, 1991. Arun Kumar was appointed on 25th October, 1991, Balram Paswan on 26th October, 1991 and Mani Prasad and Niraj Kumar were appointed on 27th October, 1991. The present respondent was also appointed on 27th October, 1991. 5. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal has to be dismissed and is dismissed with no order as to costs. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/