IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14952 of 2009 1. YADUNANDAN PRASAD S/O SRI BALDEO PRASAD VILL.- CHAKMOHIUDDINPUR, P.O.- MOHIUDDINPUR, P.S.- HILSA, DISTT.- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BELLY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF - CUM - SPECIAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARIYA BHAWAN, BELLY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BELLY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BELLY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING CIRCLE, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEVISION, HILSA, DISTT.- NALANDA ----------- 2. 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in the writ application is to give continuity in service by counting the period spent in the work charge establishment prior to regularization/absorption in the department. Under a policy decision for filling 50% of the seats on the post of Plumber in the work charge establishment from candidates trained in the Plumber trade from I.T.I., the petitioner came to be appointed in 1987 in the work charge establishment. It is the contention of the petitioner that he continued in that capacity when his service book was opened and certain promotions granted. He was terminated from service by an order dated 13.4.2002 on the ground that his appointment in the work charge establishment was contrary to law. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 7363 of 2002 which came to be disposed by a Division Bench along with large number of other analogous writ applications giving directions to consider for regularization in light of certain 2 directions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnata & ors. Versus Uma Devi & ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1. The petitioner has now been regularized by an order dated 26.10.2007. It appears that the Division Bench did not interfere with the termination order of the petitioner. It noticed the controversy of the defence raised by the petitioner that there was no illegality in the appointment at paragraph 10 of the judgment and required the Respondents to decide that issue also. On the validity or invalidity of the order of termination shall depend the subsequent act of absorption. From the order dated 26.10.2007, in absence of any discussion with regard to the alleged invalidity of the appointment of the petitioner in the work charge establishment allegedly after the cut off date, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there may not have been any illegality in the appointment of the petitioner and to that extent the termination may not be sustainable. If that be the correct position, the claim of the petitioner for induction into the regular establishment from the work charge establishment in terms of the Finance Department memo no. 1344 dated 4.2.1949 being statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in context of induction into the regular establishment of work charge employees after one year of proved service considered by this Court on more than one occasion shall merit consideration in context of the impugned order dated 26.10.2007. Since the petitioner has been regularized/absorbed 3 by order dated 26.10.2007, the matter is remanded to the authorities for reconsideration and redecision on the effective date in light of the claim of the petitioner to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)