IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.259 of 2009 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., PATNA, VEER CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA ……… APPELLANT Versus 1. RAMESHWAR RAM S/O SRI MUKHDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHULKAHA, P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTRICT SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT ROOM ATTENDANT, HOTEL KAUTILYA VIHAR, PATNA 2. RAJESH RAM S/O BANDHU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE YARPUR, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS SWEEPER IN KAUTILYA VIHAR, PATNA ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate ---------- 5. 9.9.2009 Heard Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.6044 of 2001, whereunder the learned Single Judge has directed the present appellant to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for payment as per the policy decision dated 6.6.2000. The direction in the writ petition was to the following effect: “In that view of the matter, the Corporation is hereby directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for payment as per the said policy decision dated 6.6.2000. In the event the Corporation comes to the conclusion that both the petitioners are covered by the policy decision, they shall be admitted to the minimum scale and dearness allowance. This Court will be pleased if the entire process including payment of the differential amounts of salary, if any, is completed within a period of three months from today.” - 2 - The other direction in the writ petition was to the Corporation to constitute a committee to consider the cases of the petitioners for the purpose of regularization. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that though on principle the Corporation is not aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Corporation only wanted that the two concerned employees are required to enter into an agreement with the corporation which is annexed in this L.P.A. as part of Annexure-1. The Counsel for the appellant further stated that a committee has been constituted to go into the question of regularization. Therefore paragraph 3 of the direction is also not required to be interfered with. The Counsel for the respondents stated that the writ petitioners (respondents in the present appeal) would have no objection to enter into the agreement as per Annexure-1. In these circumstances, the appeal is disposed of with a direction that on execution of such agreement, the necessary relief as indicated in paragraph 2 of the order of the learned Single Judge be given to the respondents. Narendra/ ( P. K. Misra, CJ. ) ( Anjana Prakash, J. )