IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16613 of 2009 Mahendra Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15235 of 2005 Mahendra Prasad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 8/ 06/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The former writ application questions the reversion of the petitioner to the work charged status. The latter seeks post retirement benefits pursuant to the regularization done earlier. Both applications are integrally connected and have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by this common order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2009 canceling his induction into the work charged establishment on 22.10.1984 and subsequent regularization on 12.4.2007 along with directions for recovery of payments made. The contention is that the two orders are in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice without a notice to show cause. In pursuance of the latter order dated 12.4.2007 the petitioner has been paid his retirement benefits also for which he now faces recovery. Several others who did not complete five years 2 in the work charged establishment have been inducted into the regular establishment, but have not been visited with any adverse consequences. The petitioner was made permanent on a class 4 post of Treasure Guard. He was then brought into the work charged establishment and subsequently into the regular establishment on a class-3 post. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was in a permanent capacity on the class 4 post of a Treasure Guard. He then remained in the work charged establishment from 22.10.1984 till his superannuation on 31.1.2005. After superannuation the relationship of master and servant stood severed. There was no occasion to pass any orders on 12.4.2007 for inducting him into the regular establishment much after his superannuation. If the regularization apparently was contrary to the law, there was no need to issue him any notice. The status of the petitioner as a Treasure Guard and his induction into the work charged establishment are not in dispute. The only controversy is in respect of his induction to the regular establishment on a class-3 post of Toll Clerk. After superannuation, an employee goes outside the administrative purview of the respondents insofar as his 3 conditions of service are concerned. There can be no reformulation of his service conditions thereafter retrospectively. The induction from the work charged establishment into the regular establishment is undoubtedly a part of the conditions of service. By passing such post facto orders, by a fiction the respondents could not have resurrected a relationship of master and servant which no more existed. The Court finds it difficult to appreciate the manner in which and the reason why an order for regularization came to be passed long after the work charged employee had retired. There can be no justification in law for the same. Regularization is not a mode of appointment. It was for the petitioner to pursue his remedies appropriately while he was in service. If he accepted his fate and superannuated in work charged capacity on 13.1.2005, the relationship must abide by that classification. The reliance by the petitioner on a Circular dated 20.9.1990 with regard to induction into the regular establishment from the work charged establishment are issues not relevant in the facts of the present case. The order for regularization does not draw sustenance from the same. It seeks to regularize retrospectively from 22.10.1984 on the premise of 4 completion of five years service in work charged capacity. If an order was passed contrary to the law conferring an apparently impermissible benefit, it is not possible to hold that before canceling such an order natural justice had to be complied with, especially when the facts are so glaring. Natural justice is not a panacea for all ills. Its applicability or inapplicability shall depend on the facts of each case. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 6.11.2009. All other issues, as prayed, with regard to salary entitlement/adjustment/recovery are left open for consideration by the respondents on an appropriate representation to be submitted by the petitioner. This shall not be construed as a reluctance of the Court to interfere with the same. Once interference with the impugned order has been declined, the matter rests in the administrative domain. The writ application is dismissed with that limited observation. In view of the above, C.W.J.C. No.15235/09 is disposed as infructuous. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)