IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15822 of 2005 RAM BILASH RAM Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Choubey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. H.P.Singh, Advocate --------- 4 29.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 20th October, 2003 in terms of a direction passed in O.A. No. 253 of 2003 the respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for conferment of temporary status for two reasons indicated in the order. One reason is that the petitioner was not on roll as on 1.8.1998 and the break period in service has not been condoned by the competent authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however draws my attention to two orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna contained in annexure-4 as well as annexure-6. In the order dated 3.7.2002 contained in annexure-4 the Tribunal in paragraph 9 had categorically laid down that the break in service for their earlier period may also be condoned and the same directed to be treated fictional break. Similar view has been expressed by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.3.2003 contained in annexure-6. Since neither of these two orders had been modified or interfered with at any stage then in the opinion of this Court there has been error apparent on the face of record in the - 2 - decision making on behalf of the respondents. If what has been indicated by the Tribunal stays then there is problem in refusing relief to the petitioner. The order dated 20th October, 2003 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the General Manager, Telecom District, Muzaffarpur with a direction that he shall pass a fresh order in the light of annexures 4 and 6 which are on record in the present writ application. This writ application is accordingly allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)