IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1287 of 2008 MD.MANZAR IMAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 04/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Despite two years having passed from the institution of the writ application, no counter affidavit has been filed. No useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the writ application pending in the nature of the controversy involved. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Work Circar on muster roll on 18.4.1981 and then regularized on the said post on 11.1.1983. He was issued a show cause notice for reversion to his status of daily wage on 29.4.2002. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1101/04. This Court directed consideration of his claim in accordance with Government policies. Non- compliance led to the institution of M.J.C. No.89/06 when the respondents passed an order bearing No.174 dated 24.11.2006 reinstating him as Inspector in the regular work charged establishment. He is now aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 29.11.2006 and 11.5.2007 adjusting him on the post of Keyman-cum-Choukidar. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 24.11.2006 the petitioner was kept in the regular establishment on the post of Inspector. By the impugned orders he is sought to be reverted and that too without a show cause notice. The respondents paid lip service to the orders of this Court in the writ petition in view of the contempt proceedings filed against them and are not trying to overreach the orders of this Court. The petitioner was initially appointed in the muster roll establishment and then inducted into the regular establishment. When he was sought to be reverted to the daily wage status, he came to this Court. The respondents then absorbed him on the post of Inspector in the regular establishment. This also was done only after the petitioner filed a contempt application. Once he came to be absorbed by order dated 24.11.2006, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass any fresh orders with regard to the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Keyman-cum-Choukidar, a post stated to be subordinate to that of Inspector. Since the order dated 24.11.2006 was issued in compliance of certain orders of this Court and in pursuance of which the contempt proceedings stood disposed, this Court is satisfied that thereafter the respondents cannot adopt a different standard and yardstick with regard to the petitioner 3 without first cancelling the order dated 24.11.2006 before issuance of the orders dated 29.11.2006 and dated 11.5.2007. Once the respondents took a particular stand before this Court and in pursuance of which the contempt proceedings stood disposed, the respondents cannot be permitted to renegade from the same. Even if it be permissible, it could be done only in a manner sanctioned by law after issuance of a prior show cause notice and the cause shown which does not appear to have been done, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 29.11.2006 and 11.5.2007 are, therefore, not sustainable in their present form. They are accordingly set aside with consequential benefits. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)