IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17476 of 2009 SHAKTI PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ram Kishore Singh-2, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Zabi Haider, A.C. to G.A.-10 ----------- 02 22.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have retired on 30.6.2008 from the post of Assistant Engineer, Department of Fisheries at Muzaffarpur. He was then compelled to file C.W.J.C. No. 9607 of 2009 for his retiral dues like pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. That provided the respondents with the necessary opportunity to expose the petitioner to further litigation at their whim and discretion after his superannuation rescheduling his date of his absorption in Government service from 12.5.1987. The State Government in the Department of Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Co-operative (Fisheries) set up the Fish Farmers Development Agency (hereinafter called the Agency) in accordance with the scheme of the Central Government. The petitioner was appointed as Engineer Supervisor in 2 the Agency. He came to be regularized in the Agency itself. A decision was taken to absorb the services of Engineer Supervisor in the Agency on the post of Assistant Engineer. The services of the petitioner then merged in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department when he was upgraded to the rank of Assistant Engineer and his services regularized in the Government with effect from 12.5.1987. The counter affidavit of the respondents asserts that after the Fish Farmers Development Agency was wound up by the State Government, the service of the petitioner was terminated. He was then appointed afresh in the Department of Agriculture. It is this date of fresh appointment which has been reckoned for computations of his service tenure, reliance is placed on certain writings in Service-book by Annexure-B/1 to that effect. The respondents have themselves annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit the Government order dated 11.5.1987. It states in no unambiguous terms that consequent to the wounding up of the Fish Farmers Development Agency with the recommendation of the Commission, the services of the petitioner were 3 being absorbed in the State Government. It is apparent from the counter affidavit itself that the petitioner services came to be absorbed under the State Government in the Department of Agriculture consequent to the wounding up of the Agency set up by the Government itself earlier. It is not a case where the Agency was wound up and services terminated, a fresh advertisement made, a fresh selection done and then a fresh appointment made. Once the order dated 11.5.1987 exclusively admits that it was a case of absorption, consequent to the wounding up of the department, the service of the petitioner under the Agency has necessarily to be counted. In any event Annexure-1 dated 18.3.2009 being non- speaking in nature also suffering from vice of arbitrariness is not sustainable read in conjunction with the counter affidavit. The writ application is allowed and the service tenure of the petitioner is directed to be computed with effect from 19.3.1975 when he came to be appointed as an Engineer Supervisor in the Fish Farmers Development Agency setup by the State Government itself and subsequently absorbed in Government service. The order dated 18.3.2008 4 is set aside. The contention of the respondents in paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit with regard to consideration of the A.C.P. claim of the petitioner is now directed to be made in accordance with the present order preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)