IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.627 of 2007 THE ADMINISTRATOR,PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVING HIS OFFICE IN BUDH MARG, POLICE STATION-KOTWALI, DIST- PATNA, NOW IT IS CHANGED AS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HAVING HIS OFFICE IN BUDH MARG, PATNA … APPELLANT Versus 1. Uday Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Nageshwar Singh, resident of Bahadurpur, Police Station-Sultanganj, Distt-Patna 2. The Deputy Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation having his office in Budh Marg, P.S.-Kotwali, Distt- Patna, now it is changed as Additional Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna .. respondentss With LPA No.628 of 2007 THE ADMINISTRATOR,PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVING HIS OFFICE IN BUDH MARG, POLICE STATION-KOTWALI, DIST- PATNA, NOW IT IS CHANGED AS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HAVING HIS OFFICE IN BUDH MARG, PATNA … APPELLANT Versus 1. Baliram Prasad Singh, S/o Sri Jay Bihari Singh, resident of Keshri Bhawan, Shivaji Path, Yarpur, P.S.-Gardanibagh, Distt-Patna 2. The Deputy Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation having his office in Budh Marg, P.S.-Kotwali, Distt- Patna, now it is changed as Additional Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna ----------- 6 12.05.2011 Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed, and the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned. The present appeals have been filed against the common order dated 09.03.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3441 of 2002 and 3461 of 2002 respectively, whereby the learned Single 2 Judge directed the respondents authority- appellant herein to regularize the services of petitioners-respondents herein on the post of Tax Collector and also to make available such benefits which they may acquire by virtue of such regularization of services on the post as stated above. The record of this case shows that these L.P.As were stand dismissed for default as against respondent no.1 for none compliance of the peremptory order. The learned Single Judge having heard the parties and having found that these matters are covered by the ratio of the decision as laid down by this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of ‘Surya Kant Jha vs. the P.M.C. and others’ reported in [2004 (1) PLJR 366] and Sri Sita Ram Chaudhary Vs. the P.M.C. & others reported in [2004 (2) PLJR 840], directed the respondents corporation-appellant herein to regularize the services of the petitioners-respondents herein on the post of Tax Collector as also to make available such benefits which they may acquire by virtue of such confirmation of their services on the post in question. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant corporation submits that no counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners-respondents herein before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court. It has been urged by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appointments of the petitioners-respondents herein were itself illegal and irregular. But, however, on a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the petitioner-respondent herein in L.P.A. No. 627 of 2007, namely, Uday Kumar Singh was appointed as a Chainman on a daily wages basis on 17.10.1975 and his services were confirmed against the vacant sanctioned post on 28.08.1984 and the petitioner-respondent herein in L.P.A. No. 628 of 2007, namely, Baliram Prasad Singh was appointed as a Guard on a daily wages basis in the year 1976 and his services were confirmed on the said post on 23.08.1985. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the opposite party before us that in view of ratio of the decision in Uma Devi’s Case, the appointments of petitioners- 4 respondents herein cannot be sustained. Even in the memorandum of the present L.P.As, no ground is taken to show that the appointments of the petitioners-respondents herein are illegal and irregular in nature. In the absence of such material, this Court is not inclined to dwell upon the issue ‘whether these appointments were illegal or irregular’. But, however, it has to be observed that the respondents were appointed and their services were regularized on the sanctioned post. It is not open for the corporation to raise such ground after a period of 37 years approximately to show that the posts which were hold by the petitioners- respondents herein are irregular and illegal in nature. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals stand dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)