IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7281 of 2002 MOHD.SAGIR KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 27/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2002 terminating his services and the consequential order for return of the salary paid to him from June, 1987 to May, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages by an order dated 2.6.1987. He continued as such till his appointment was made on a temporary basis in view of his performance at work by an order dated 1.9.1988. Thereafter his services was regularized on 10.9.1991. Learned counsel submits that Annexure- 3 was not a show cause in accordance with law and emphasizes the long continuance of the petitioner from 1987 to 2002. On the own showing of the petitioner the appointment on daily wages was made without following any procedures. Even the order of regularization sought to be relied upon does not show that his case was considered along with others by a body competent to do 2 so and an order of regularization passed after assessment of comparative merits. If the petitioner in this manner continued to work for fifteen years, there was some body who took work from him. It is that person who is liable to compensate the State Government for any wages that may have been paid to the petitioner. The respondents have chosen not to file any counter affidavit. The fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has worked for fifteen years. To quash the order of termination simpliciter shall result in his reinstatement. This Court has already qualified that he has not been able to demonstrate the legality of his appointment. Nonetheless, if the respondents chose to shut the petitioner out of a consideration, they are simultaneously obliged to proceed against those who appointed the petitioner, whether they be in service or superannuated in the departmental jurisdiction or the criminal law as the case may be and take it to its logical end. The respondents cannot be permitted to find fault with the petitioner alone while seeking to protect those who make a golden handshake with the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds it difficult to sustain that part of the order dated 15.5.2002 which orders recovery from the 3 petitioner. That part of the order is accordingly quashed. The recovery, if any, has to be made from those who inducted the petitioner. Let the respondents take a decision with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in the background of his long continuance for fifteen years in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Versus UMA DEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in 2006(4) S.C.C.-1. If the respondents choose to deny the benefit of the same to the petitioner, they shall be obliged to do so by a speaking and reasoned order simultaneously initiating proceedings against those who wrongly inducted the petitioner. Let such compliance be done by the respondents and a final reasoned and speaking decision be taken by the competent authority within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)