IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.96 of 2005 1. The General Manager (Finance), Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block ‘C’, Maurya Lok, Patna (Respondent No. 4) 2. The General Manager, Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., Mokama Unit, Mokama, Patna (Respondent No. 6) 3. The General Manager, Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., Muzaffarpur Unit, Muzaffarpur, Bihar (Respondent No. 7) 4. The Manager (Personnel), Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block-C, Mauryalok, Patna (Respondent No. 8) ….Appellants. -Versus- 1. Brahmeshwar Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh, resident of village B.W.Colony, Qr. No. 5/18, Maripur, P.S. Maripur, District Muzaffarpur (Petitioner) 2. The Union of India, through the Bharat Wagon & Engg. Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block – C, Mauryalok, Patna (Respondent no. 1) 3. The Managing Director, Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block – C, Mauryalok, Patna (Respondent no. 2) 4. The General Manager (P & A), Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block – C, Mauryalok, Patna (Respondent no. 3) 5. The Chief Manager (P & A), Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, Block – C, Mauryalok, Patna (Respondent no. 5) …..Respondents. ***** For the Appellants ------------- Mr. Udayan Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondents ------------- Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No. 1, Adv. Mr. Vitesh Kumar Singh, Adv. 09. 12.7.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 15.10.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3217 of 2002. In this case, appellant is the Public Sector Undertaking (Bharat Wagon & Engineering Company Limited) and the respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition, who has chosen to question the Order passed by the Company shifting his date of appointment from 15.7.1977 to 21.9.1994 on the basis of legal opinion. The Learned Single Judge, having not accepted the 2 action of the appellant, herein allowed the writ petition with a direction to treat the petitioner-respondent herewith as re- instated in service by virtue of the order dated 6.9.1994 (Annexure ‘F’ to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3). Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. The fact of the case is that by order dated 20.9.1994, the appellant company has imposed the punishment of re-instatement of the respondent-petitioner into service with certain conditions as set out in the said order. The petitioner has accepted the order but he was aggrieved with the order passed by the company shifting his date of appointment from 15.7.1977 to 21.9.1994 on the basis of legal opinion. After some argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company has submitted that he would like to withdraw the appeal with a condition that the respondent-petitioner will be only entitled for calculation of his retirement benefits and other pensionary benefits treating the date of appointment as 15.7.1977 instead of 21.9.1994. As we find legality in the submission made by the appellant we allow the appeal to be withdrawn with the above condition that the date of appointment of respondent-petitioner shall be treated to be 15.7.1977 instead of 21.9.1994 for the purposes of calculation of retiral benefits and other pensionary benefits and the same shall be calculated and paid within a period of three months, if not already paid after deducting and adjusting the amount. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel for the respondent submits that he has 3 filed a Cross-Objection on 23.6.2011 and sought permission of this Court to withdraw the said Cross-Objection also. Accordingly, the Cross-Objection shall also stands dismissed. Anay/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. )