IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1010 of 2010 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Govt.Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director In Chief, Health Services,Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kanti, Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. Satyadeo Singh, S/O Sri Janardan Singh, R/O Village Bandwar, P.S. Chandpura, District- Begusarai. ----------- 03/ 28.06.2011 Heard the parties. This letters patent appeal is preferred against the order dated 06.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.13526 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge. This LPA is liable to be disposed of in terms of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 11.2.2010 passed in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. V. Sohan Roy & Ors. reported in Patna Law Journal Reports 2010 (2) 397. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 29.03.2011 passed in L.P.A. No.230/2011 and its analogous cases wherein the Division Bench after quoting paragraph-11 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 2 ‘State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors’ reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 has held as under:- “ In view of the law laid down in the case of M.L. Kesari (Supra), the order of termination issued against the writ petitioners, respondents here cannot be said to be legal as they have been worked continuously for more than ten years without the protection of any interim orders of the Court or Tribunal. Further there is no material placed before us which shows that the enquiry report was signed by five members of the committee, as directed by this Court. That apart, the writ petitioners, respondents herein were not given an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry conducted in pursuance to the order of this Court, as such we are of the opinion that the order of termination issued against the petitioner, respondents herein is in violation of principles of natural justice”. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that the judgment has no binding effect for the reason that the Division Bench itself has observed that they have been worked continuously for more than ten years. Thus, the reference of the matter for scrutiny by a single member of committee by a Division Bench on facts as to whether how may persons in the Health Department like the respondents have put in more than ten years service without protection of any interim order 3 of Court or Tribunal are entitled to the benefits of Paragraph-53 of the judgment in Uma Devi’s case. We are fully agreed with the Division Bench judgment dated 11.2.2010 passed in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. V. Sohan Roy & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) 397 Patna Law Journal Reports. Therefore, we allow the LPA and refer the matter to the single Judge for scrutiny of facts in order to ascertain as to how many employees are entitled to benefit of Paragraph-53 of Uma Devi’s case. The L.P.A. is disposed of. Mkr. (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)