IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3901 of 2008 RAM SWARATH SAHU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.3975 of 2009 SHYAM NARAYAN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.13718 of 2009 JAG NARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.14758 of 2009 GANESH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15082 of 2009 AWDHESH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15159 of 2009 RAM BABU YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15228 of 2009 JIBACHH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15330 of 2009 UMESH KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15400 of 2009 JAIBIR PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15465 of 2009 RAM NARAIN YADAV Versus 2 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15504 of 2009 MAHESH LAL @ MAHESH LAL DEV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15574 of 2009 ARUN KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15939 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15966 of 2009 BINDESHWAR PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15967 of 2009 RAJ KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15968 of 2009 VIMAL PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16039 of 2009 RAJESH KUMAR MALLICK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16041 of 2009 ARVIND KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16612 of 2009 DEO NARAYAN SAFI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16664 of 2009 RAM UDGAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 3 with CWJC No.16680 of 2009 BAIJ NATH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16967 of 2009 RAMDEO RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.18365 of 2008 BHAGIRATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.8611 of 2009 RAJA RAM YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &O RS with CWJC No.14188 of 2009 BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15394 of 2009 MANDAVI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15395 of 2009 DURGANAND YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15396 of 2009 LUKHIYA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15397 of 2009 PARMESHWAR YADAV & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15500 of 2009 BIRENDRA NARAYAN LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with 4 CWJC No.15515 of 2009 KAPILDEO PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15632 of 2009 GURUSHARAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15841 of 2009 RAJESH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15964 of 2009 NAGENDRA SAHU & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.15988 of 2009 BINOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16048 of 2009 UPENDRA DOM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16095 of 2009 SHANTU KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16291 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16292 of 2009 RAM SANEHI SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16340 of 2009 CHANDRAMANI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.16395 of 2009 5 SACHENDRA KUMAR PATEL @ SACHINDRA KUMAR PATEL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5/ 18.12.2009 Petitioners in all these writ applications are Class-III and Class-IV terminated employees of Health Department, except, petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3901 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 15396 of 2009. Prayer of petitioners in all these writ applications is for quashing of the report submitted by Five Men Committee, whereunder their appointments have been put either in illegal or forged category. Prayer of the petitioners is also for a direction to quash consequential orders, issued by the respective authorities in their cases as well as for a direction to the respondents to re-instate them with all consequential benefits. Counsels for the petitioners have been submitted that none of these petitioners are appointees of Dr. A.K. Mallick and, as such, their cases are identical to the case of those petitioners, whose cases have been decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases. The counsels have also submitted that similar grounds have been taken by all these petitioners in their writ applications for quashing of the enquiry report as well as the termination orders, as such findings recorded in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases, are equally applicable in their cases. Petitioners in all these cases were also appointed in 6 between 1980-1986 or later on. They have continued in their service uninterruptedly for ten years or more, they were treated as regular employees by opening of their service books, increments, enhancement of pay scale, etc. Their appointments have been put in the forged and illegal category, without giving them any opportunity to defend their cases, without properly looking into the connected records of their appointments and without holding proper enquiry. The Enquiry Committee has recorded finding in their cases completely overlooking the direction of High Court in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases. Accordingly, the enquiry report relating to these petitioners, and their respective consequential respective termination orders, are fit to be quashed. Prayer of the petitioners is allowed. Enquiry report relating to the petitioners and termination orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioners on their respective posts with effect from the date, they have been terminated, with all consequential benefits. C.W.J.C. No. 3901 of 2008 was filed by one Ram Swarath Sahu. He was class-III employees. During the pendency of the writ application, he died. I.A. No. 5489 of 2009 was filed by Smt. Gayatri Devi, widow of original petitioner, Ram Swarath Sahu, for substituting her name in place of the original petitioner, Ram Swarath Sahu. I.A. No. 5489 2009 was allowed and the name of 7 Gayatri Devi was substituted in place of original petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the substituted petitioner, Gayatri Devi is entitled for the monetary benefits, payable to her late husband, family pension and other pensionary benefits. She can also apply for her compassionate appointment being the widow a government employee. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 15396 of 2009 is Lukhiya Devi. Late Ram Chandra Mahto husband of Lukhiya Devi had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 1262 of 2003 (Sitaram Mishra & Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others) for his arrears/current salary, which was disposed of by order dated 24.02.2003. The Civil Surgeon-cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani vide letter contained in Memo No. 882 Madhubani dated 27.03.2003 terminated petitioner’s husband and C.W.J.C. No. 7302 of 2003 was filed, challenging the order. This writ application was disposed of by a common order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, with a direction to the State Government to consider the case of each petitioner within a period of six months, after scrutinizing the case of each petitioner. Finally, the committee constituted in the light of the direction of the High Court, scrutinize several cases but 245 cases were kept pending. The pending 245 cases were again scrutinized by Four Men Committee. But, so far the case of the 8 husband of the petitioner is concerned, was not scrutinized though, the validity of his appointment undecided but, it has been thrown in the forged category. The petitioner’s late husband worked for more than 16 years continuously without any break in service, his service book was opened and he was regularized on the post. He could not have been terminated simply on the basis of a show cause notice, without initiating any departmental proceeding, in this regard, which is essential in case of permanent/regular staff of the Health Department, Government of Bihar. The direction and order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases is fully applicable in case of petitioners Lukhiya Devi and Gayatri Devi. The petitioners are entitled for all monetary benefits including the pensionary benefits and family pension as well as compassionate appointment. All these writ applications are allowed in the light of the judgment/order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)