IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11154 of 2003 RATAN KUMAR, SON OF LATE LAXSHMI NARAYAN VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PATEL NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT PATNA. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARPUR. --- RESPONDENTS For petitioner :- Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Alok, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A. 10 ----------- 6 21.5.2010 The petitioner has challenged annexures 1 and 2 by which the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Research Officer to Research Assistant. Petitioner is claiming the same relief as one Kumar Kant Lal. It is submitted that the case of Kumar Kant Lal and the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. This Court has already considered the case of Kumar Kant Lal in CWJC No. 10387 of 2003 disposed of on 2.5.2005 and quashed the order by which the Kumar Kant Lal was reverted to the post of Research Assistant. The contention of the State is that t he case of the petitioner is not on the same footing as Kumar Kant Lal. A comparative chart which states the dates on which two persons were appointed and promoted is being given below: Annexure 17 A copy of comparison chart showing the details of the Petitioner (Ratan Kumar) and another Kumar Kant Lal Petitioner No. 1 Kumar Kant Lal (Petitioner (Ratan Kumar) of CWJC No. 10387/2003) Qualification Graduate (Science) Graduate (Science) --- 23.12.74 - Appointed as Junior Research Assistant (200-350 / Unrevised) 2 (335-555 / Revised) in Work Charge Establishment. 24.1.73 -Appointed Research Assistant 31.8.78 -Promoted to Research Assistant(400- (Annexure- (230-450/-Unrevised) (400-660/- 660/-) in Work Charge A3) Revised) in Work Charge Establishment. Establishment. 9.9.78 - Re-designated as Assistant 9.9.78 - Re-designated as Assistant (Annexure- Research Officer in Work Research Officer in Work A5) Charge Establishment (400-660/-) charge Establishment (400-660/-). 5.2.83. - Petitioner No. 1 brought in Regular 1.4.91 - K.K. Lal brought in Regular (Annexure- establishment as A.R.O. (400-660/-). w.e.f. Establishment as A.R.O. (400-660/-). A7) 22.10.84 1.6.88 - Granted 1st time bound promotion 23.11.93 - Granted 1st time bound promotion w.e.f. (1648-2900/-). w.e.f. (1648-2900/-). 15.5.83 31.8.88 (Annexure-8) 30.10.01 - Show Cause 30.10.01 - Show Cause (Annexure-9) Nov 01 - Reply given 20.11.01 - Reply given. (Annexure A 10) 13.11.02/ - Reverted to Research Assistant. 18.11.02/ - Reverted to Research Assistant Annexure-1 2.1.03 2.1.03/ Annexure-2 From perusal of the chart, it would appear that the petitioner was appointed earlier in time to Kumar Kant Lal and on higher post of Research Assistant whereas Kumar Kant Lal was appointed as a Junior Research Assistant on 23.12.1974. Subsequently Kumar Kant Lal was promoted as a Research Assistant on 31.8.1978. Both the petitioner and Kumar Kant Lal became Assistant Research Officer as the post of Research Assistant was re- designated on 9.9.1978 by annexure-5 in the Work Charge Establishment of the Water Resources Department. On 5.2.1983 petitioner was brought into the regular establishment whereas Kumar Kant Lal was brought to the regular establishment on 1.4.1991 w.e.f. 22.10.1984. The chart also discloses that the petitioner was granted first time bound promotion earlier in time to Kumar Kant Lal. Thereafter both were issued show cause notice and reverted to the post 3 of Research Assistant. The contention of the State is that Research Assistant was converted into the Assistant Research Officer and declared as gazetted post, whereas under work charge establishment conversion from non gazetted post into gazetted post is absolutely irregular. This objection of the petitioner has been dealt with and set at rest in the order passed in CWJC No. 10387 of 2003 wherein the same objections were raised on behalf of the State. There appears to be a confusion that the petitioner was brought in the regular establishment by his redesignation as Assistant Research Officer which is obviously incorrect in view of annexure-5 which indicates that the petitioner was in the work charge establishment, when the post was redesignated as Assistant Research Officer besides which the order of the learned Single Bench has been affirmed by the L.P.A. Court on 12.3.2007 (LPA No. 833 of 2006). Considering the submissions, this Court quashes the orders contained in annexures 1 and 2. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits which should be given to the petitioner within a period of four months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)