IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.517 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus SHAILENDRA KUMAR ----------- For the appellants :Mr.Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Junior counsel to Additional Advocate General-III ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 28th July, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of one hundred and eighty days. For condonation thereof , an application (I.A.No.3978/2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General-III did not dispute that initially the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms took the decision to regularize the services of all the daily wage employees appointed up to Ist of August, 1985. He also did not dispute, rather he admitted, that cut off date, Ist of August, 1985, was extended up to 11th of December, 1990. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position admitted by the Additional Advocate General, we may not turn the few other admitted facts, namely, (one) that the sole respondent (original petitioner) was - 2 - initially appointed on ad hoc basis as Cashier-cum-Bill clerk for a period of six months on 3rd of April, 1984 at Mulbany extension-cum- Training Center, Shikaripara, Dumka; (two) that on 25th of October, 1984, vide memo no.184 the services of the sole respondent were regularized by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Dumka; (three) that on 31st of December, 1990 he was transferred from Mulbany Extension-cum- Training Center, Shikaripara to Silk Service Center, Muzaffarpur; (four) that the seniority list of the clerks working under the Directorate, Handloom and Sericulture Industries, Bihar was published on 28th of June, 1993, wherein the sole respondent’s name figured at item no.120; (five) in another seniority list published on 08th January, 1996, again the sole respondent’s name figured at serial no.120; and (six) that the case of the sole respondent was also considered for grant of first time bound promotion in view of the fact that he had passed the accounts examination on 29.10.1994. 3. The aforesaid facts lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner’s case was covered by the decision taken by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to regularize the services of the daily wage employees, who were appointed up to Ist of October, 1985. On its face, the case of the sole respondent is on a stronger footing than that of Vasant Kumar. 4. Be that as it may, once it has been decided by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to regularize the - 3 - services of all the daily wage employees appointed up to Ist of August, 1985 and the fact that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager prior to that date and in fact his employment was regularised and his name was shown in the seniority list, no doubt is left that the sole respondent was brought to the cadre of Class III employees as per the existing law. 5. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. 6. This disposes of limitation petition (I.A.No.3978 of 2008) as well. 7. Since the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed, the stay application does not survive. I.A.No.3977 of 2008 seeking interim relief is also rejected, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil