IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.64 of 2007 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10940/1999) 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner- Cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner Cum- Secretary, Minor Irrigation, (Eastern Zone) High Level Canal, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer- in- Chief Cum Additional Commissioner Cum- Secretary, Deptt. Of Irrigation Bihar, Patna. 5. The Engineer in Chief (Central) Water Resources Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 6. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Deptt. Water Resources Deptt. Aurgangabad. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Sone High Level Canal Circle, Aurangabad. 8. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Deptt. (Eastern Zone High Level Canal) Tekari Division, Gaya. ……………..Respondents…..Appellants. Versus 1. Gobind Singh son of Sri Sarjug Singh, resident of Vill. Baldeo Bigha, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya. 2. Madan Ram son of Shri Dinesh Ram, resident of Village Janardan Bigha, P.S. Tekari Dist. Gaya. 3. Sitaram son of Bandhu Beldar, resident of Village Baldeo Bigha P.S. Tekari Dist. Gaya. 4. Sukhdeo Prasad Singh son of Shri Shiv Balak Mahto, resident of Village Panchampur, P.S. Tekari Distt. Gaya. 5. Badri Chaudhary S/O Sri Nanhku Chaudhary, Vill. Chaknath P.S. Tekari, Distt. Gaya. 6. Ramashish Singh S/o Sri Hari Nath Singh, Vill. Zakhaura P.S. Hamidpur, District- Aurangabad. …………….Petitioners/ Respondents. 6 08.09.2011 This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.7.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10940 of 1999, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners- respondents herein was allowed with a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by issuing appropriate orders within a period of three month from the date of passing of the order. This is a case where the petitioners- respondents herein sought regularization of their services in the Irrigation 2 Department under Subdivisional Officer, Eastern Sone High Level Canal, Tekari Subdivision in the district of Gaya. The facts of the case would reveal that on earlier occasion when their services were terminated they moved the then existing Bihar Administrative Tribunal, Patna and thereafter they were taken back in service under the orders of the Chief Engineer of the department on the condition that they will not demand their salary for the period of retrenchment but their seniority will be maintained without being affected by their retrenchment in the year 1985. Further case of the writ petitioners- respondents herein is that when their services were not regularized they filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.7470 of 1995 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.1.1997 with a direction to the concerned authority to examine the grievance of the petitioners and in case they are working since last about 12 years and the sanctioned posts are available their cases may be considered for regularization as per the Government Policy without any unnecessary delay. In spite of the said order when no relief was granted to the petitioners they preferred the present writ application in the year 1999 in which a stand was taken that when the persons junior to them have been regularized in service they were also entitled for regularization in services. In this regard they have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Pawan Kishore Karn Vs. The State of Bihar’ reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 27 in 3 which similarly situated persons belonging to the same department appointed in the year 1982 to 1984 including the persons who were subsequently appointed had been regularized by order of the Chief Engineer in the year 1988 vide letter No.363 and some others by order of the Superintending Engineer vide Memo No.811 dated 3.3.1988 on the direction given by this Court to issue orders of regularization within a period of four months from the date of filing of a fresh application. In the present writ petition also it has been urged that juniors to the petitioners- respondents herein have been regularized and they have also given the names of 14 such persons by filing a supplementary affidavit. The learned Single Judge having gone into the merits of the case and considering that as the petitioners were appointed prior to the cut off date and also considering the case of Pawan Kishore Karn (Supra) has observed that the petitioners are entitled for regularization and accordingly by allowing the writ petition a direction was given to the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners by issuing an appropriate orders within three months from that order. Aggrieved by the same the present L.P.A. has been filed. It has been urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that when the initial appointment of the petitioners is in violation of the rules they confer no right for regularization in their services in view of law laid down in the 4 case of ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi’ reported in 2006 (4) SCC page-1. We have to observe that no evidence has been placed before this Court in support of the contention that the appointments of the petitioners- respondents herein have been made in violation of the rules as was prevalent in the year 1979, 1981 and 1982. In absence of such evidence it is not open to the State to urge that the initial appointment of the petitioners- respondents herein is in violation of the rules. Under the above circumstances, we are not satisfied with the contentions raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)