IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6289 of 2006 OM PRAKASH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 10.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The speaking order contained in Annexure-9 dated 11th March, 2006 is under challenge in the present writ application. The speaking order has been passed on the direction of the High Court issued in CWJC No. 9681 of 1999, which was disposed of on 7.1.2005. The basic fact is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Steno Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on the recommendation of the Bihar State Awar Seva Chayan Parishad (Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board). Such a recommendation however came to be withdrawn and petitioner was removed from service with effect from 20.4.1987. Subsequently he was re-appointed on 5.1.1989. Removal of the petitioner and other persons was fall out of judicial order passed by the High Court and so was his re-appointment. The details of the background and the entirety of the facts would be available in the order of the High Court passed earlier and which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. Petitioner claims that his removal from the post was not because of the fault of his and since he came to be reinstated on 5.1.1989, he is entitled to the benefits of service including the salary for the period 20th April, 1987 till 55.1.1989. This aspect had to be considered by the respondent authority in view of the direction of the 2 High Court contained in Annexure-7. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner came to be re-appointed on 5.1.1989 there is no occasion to consider granting him any benefit for the period he was removed on 20th April, 1987 till he came to be re- appointed. There is no continuity of service and this is the period when petitioner had not worked because of the order of removal, which was not interfered with in so many years in terms of Annexure-1 but in view of the observation of the High Court the respondents had taken a magnanimous view and decided to take back the petitioner in service. Reliance of the petitioner on the principle decided in the case of Union of India and others v. K V Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109, does not apply to the case of the petitioner for the simple reason that removal of the petitioner was passed on a judicial order passed by the High Court for whatever reasons and it is the case of re-appointment and not a case of reinstatement where dismissal order has been set aside for reasons which may have been available to the respondents. Petitioner’s service will have to be considered as a case of fresh appointment on 5.1.1989 and pearlier appointment has lost its meaning in light of what has been taken note of in the earlier part of the order. No case therefore is made out for interference with Annexure-1. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)