IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4793 of 2010. 1.Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh son of Surya Narayan Singh presently posted as Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic, Saharsa. 2.Shailesh Bihari Pandey, son of Swaimber Pandey, earlier working as Senior Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur, Presently working as Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic, Guljarbagh,Patna-7. 3. Shushil Kumar Mishra son of Indra Narayan Mishra, presently working as Lecturer, Govt. Women’s Polytechnic, Phulwarisharif, Patna. 4.Awadhesh Prasad Singh son of Banwari Singh presently working as Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic, Barauni. …………………………. Petitioners. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Sri Ravi Kant son of presently not known to the petitioners, Presently posted as Principal Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Sri S.K.Negi presently posted as Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Sri Anirudh Singh presently, Managing Director, Biscomaun, Patna. ….. Respondents. For the Petitioners :Mr.Ajay Kumar,Adv. For the State : Mr.Prabhat Kumar, A.,C. to G.A.2. With MJC No.189 of 2011. Sushil Kumar Srivastava son of Jaleshwar Prasad Srivastava, resident of Srinagar Hatta, P.O. Khajanchi Hat, District Purnea. …. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Jai Ram Sah, Director, Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Bhagwan Singh, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Purnea, P.O. + P.S. and District Purnea. … Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.I. With 2 MJC No.1472 of 2011 1.Triveni Prasad Singh son of Late Bhikshuk Prasad Singh, retired Lecturer, Govt. Polytechnic, Saharsa. Presently residing at Mohalla Shivaji Nagar, Saichak, Near Beur Power Grid, P.S.Beur, District Patna. 2.Ramesh Kumar son of Late Prabhu Mahto, retired Lecturer, Govt. polytechnic, Gaya. Presently residing at Plot No.3, Road No.1, Shivaji Nagar, Saichak, P.S.Beur, District Patna. … Petitioners. Versus 1.Mr. Girish Shankar, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The State of Bihar. ….Respondents. For the Petitioners: :Mr.Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr.Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advs For the State :Mr.Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P.14. Mr. Subodh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.14. ----------- 10. 28.09.2011 Heard the parties. The State Government has issued orders absorbing the services of the petitioners in accordance with Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19th April 2010 passed in L.P.A.No. 608 of 2006 and other analogous cases. Some of the petitioners have raised a grievance that the contents of the Division Bench judgment in Para-18 and 24 and their true import have been overlooked by the opposite parties and they have denied the relief of re-instatement of such petitioners who were given a raw deal and were removed from service on reaching age of 60 years, whereas in the Polytechnic under the Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, the retirement age has been raised to 62 years, vide notification dated 20th August 2006. The prayer of the petitioners is for reinstating them from the date of the Division Bench judgment which has been approved by the Apex Court and give them 3 consequential benefits, including benefit of pension on reaching the age of superannuation. We had earlier given opportunity to the opposite parties to consider what should be the proper date for absorption of services of the petitioners. Their stand is that earlier also absorption orders were only prospective and hence, there is no need to change the date of absorption as per the orders already issued. In our considered view also, formal order of absorption is not of much consequence because the Division Bench has already clarified in Para-24 that the judgment and orders under challenge in case of petitioners were set aside, including the orders and actions whereby they were ordered to be repatriated. The authorities were directed to treat the deputation not as simple deputation but one under a valid policy for the purpose of rehabilitation or absorption through device of transfer of service. The opposite parties were directed to grant similar treatment to the petitioners vis-à-vis other employees who were absorbed. Till formal order of absorption could be issued, the petitioners were directed to be allowed to continue on the posts which they held on deputation. The Division Bench emphasized that “for all practical purposes, they shall be treated to be the employees of the concerned Departments where they are/were working on deputation”. The writ petitions as ordered by the Division Bench were allowed to the aforesaid extent. The Division Bench also clarified that if on account of judgment and orders under appeal, any of the appellants whose appeals were ultimately allowed, had been repatriated from their post under the State or dismissed (removed) from service, then such impugned or consequential order of repatriation or dismissal shall also 4 stand quashed and they shall be reinstated and allowed to work with all consequential benefits. Hence, in our considered view, the petitioners could not have been treated to have been repatriated or removed at the age of 60 years. Since the petitioners had not completed 62 years of age on the date of Division Bench judgment, they must be treated to have been reinstated with effect from the date of judgment and they are entitled to be given consequential benefits as per the judgment of the Division Bench. This must be done by passing suitable orders within six weeks from to-day. It is clarified that in terms of Division Bench judgment, the petitioners and all the beneficiaries shall be treated for all practical purposes as government servant from the date of deputation for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This view is supported by Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamlesh Narayan Singh passed on 12th February 2004 in L.P.A.No. 154 of 2004 which has been affirmed by the Apex Court. The contempt applications are disposed of but with liberty that if this order is not complied by the opposite parties within a reasonable time, as indicated above, the petitioners will be at liberty to move this Court again. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)