IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11041 OF 2002 1. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, SON OF SHRI GANGA VISHNU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANDLAL CHAPRA, POLICE STATION AGAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA 2. MD. RAFIQUE, SON OF MD. ISHLAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REPURA FATWAH, POLICE STATION FATWAH, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY –CUM- DIRECTOR (DESHI CHIKITSA), HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDIC AND UNANI MEDICINE, WORK SHOP, BIHAR, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 6 30/11/2010 The petitioners were appointed as Pharmacy Sewaks on daily wages in the Government Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine Work Shop, Bihar, Patna on 06.11.1982 and 06.02.1982 respectively. The petitioners’ services were absorbed and the service books were also opened in their names. The petitioners received the benefit of time- bound promotion and continued to work undisturbed. In May/June, 2001, an audit objection was raised with respect to the payment of certain bills, which resulted to the issuance of Annexure-9 i.e. the show cause to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed by a competent authority, that they were appointed against the 2 sanctioned post and had the basic qualifications for the purpose of appointments. The posts were advertised in all offices of the concerned departments on the notice board. The fact that no advertisement was issued in the newspaper before the absorption of the petitioners, could not termed as illegal appointment, rather it would be an irregular appointment. In the present facts, it appears that the petitioners have worked for about 20 years undisturbed, without any complaints and are highly prejudiced by the fact that they would be terminated and left with no benefit in view of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1, terminating them. This Court cannot come to a finding that the petitioners’ absorption in service on 18.03.1985 were in accordance with law, rather it was a irregular absorption, however, considering the fact that the petitioners had worked continuously for 20 years without any complaints and that they were not responsible for the appointments being irregular, inasmuch, as it was not the case of the State that the orders were obtained by practicing fraud or misleading the authorities, I direct that the respondent no. 2 should pay the petitioners a compensation of Rs. Five lakhs each in view of the peculiar facts of this case. The amount of compensation should be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the 3 date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )