IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1661 of 2010 In CWJC 17476 of 2009 With I.A. No. 9169 of 2010 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1661 of 2010 =============================================== The State of Bihar & Ors. - Appellant(s) Versus Shakti Prasad Singh & Anr. - Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance: For the Appellant: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. 10 Mr. Zaki Haider, AC to GA10 For the Respondent: Mrs. Putul Sinha =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 25.10.2010 Reg: I.A. No. 9169 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 189 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 1661 of 2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 22nd February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 17476 of 2009. The respondent-writ petitioner is an Assistant Engineer retired from the service of the State of Bihar. He filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 17476 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution for revision of terminal benefits considering his continuous service since 17th March 1975 till he reached the age of superannuation on 30th 2 June 2008. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 as an Engineer Supervisor in a Fish Farmers Development Agency established by the State of Bihar under the aid of the Central Government. The said Fish Farmers Development Agency was merged with Fisheries Department of the State of Bihar in the year 1986. On merger, under order dated 24th November 1986, the service of the writ petitioner was terminated with effect from 25th November 1986. Under Notification dated Ist May 1987, he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the State of Bihar with effect from Ist October 1986 i.e. from the date prior to termination of his service from the Agency. Since Ist May 1987 the writ petitioner served continuously as an Assistant Engineer in the service of State of Bihar till on reaching the age of superannuation he retired on 30th June 2008. However, months prior to his retirement on 30th June 2008, under order dated 18th March 2008 his appointment in the State service was altered from Ist October 1986 to 12th May 1987. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 17476 of 2009. It is not in dispute that on account of the impugned order dated 18th March 2008 the service rendered by the writ petitioner in the Fish Farmers Development Agency from 1975 to 1986 has not been treated as pensionable; the retiral benefits have been calculated on the basis of the service rendered in the State of Bihar from Ist May 1987 till he retired on 30th June 2008. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed that the entire service rendered by the writ petitioner in the Fish Farmers Development Agency and the State service is treated as pensionable. The learned Single Judge has held that the Notification dated Ist May 1987 specifically mentioned 1.10.1986 as the date of absorption. Consequently the learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 18th March 2008 and has directed the appellant-State of Bihar to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner in respect of Assured Career Progression. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mrs. Agrawal has appeared for the 3 appellant-State of Bihar. She has submitted that on record of the Fish Farmers Development Agency the service of the writ petitioner was terminated with effect from 25th October 1986. His appointment under the Notification dated Ist May 1987 was a fresh appointment subject to concurrence by the Bihar Public Service Commission. The said concurrence was never accorded. The service of the writ petitioner, therefore, from the period Ist May 1987 was not regular. It being the fresh appointment it was rightly treated under the impugned order dated 18th March 2008 as appointment from 12th May 1987 and not from Ist October 1986 as indicated in the Notification. We are unable to agree with Mrs. Agrawal. As recorded hereinabove the Notification dated Ist May 1987 remained operative till 18th March 2008. The terms of the appointment of the writ petitioner could not have been altered, that too in violation of the principle of natural justice. Obviously the order dated 18th March 2008 had civil consequences in respect of the monetary and terminal benefits available to the writ petitioner. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Jude has rightly construed the order of appointment dated Ist May 1987 and has rightly set aside the impugned order dated 18th March 2008. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. The Interlocutory Application No. 9169 of 2010 stands disposed of. As a consequence, the appellants are directed to comply with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge within three months from today. The appellants will also re-compute the pension and other retiral benefits due to the writ petitioner and will pay the amount of difference within three months from today. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)