IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.341 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 5041/2005) Nageshwar Mandal ,son of Shri Laxmi Mandal, resident of village Krishna Toli,P.S. Brahmpura, Near Kabir Math, Muzaffarpur. --- Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1, The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Rural Development (Panchayati Raj), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Panchyati Raj, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna. 4.The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer,Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Director, Panchyati Raj Directorate,Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director-cum-Deputy Secretary,Panchyati Rai, Bihar,Patna. 7. The Zila Parishad,Muzaffarpur,through its Chairman. -Respondents-Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 29.07.2011 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Bihar as well as the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.3.2008 passed in CWJC NO. 5041/2005 (Nageshwar Mandal versus State of Bihar and others). The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 24.3.2005 by which Director of Panchayat Raj, Bihar, Patna, had taken a decision pursuant to the order dated 17.2.2005 passed by this Court in CWJC No.4672 of 2003 by which it was held that services of the petitioner and some others was against law and their approval was refused for grant of payment of wages. The petitioner had challenged the said order by trying to show that it was within the competence of Zila Parishad to regularize the service and once that was done pursuant to recommendation by properly constituted Selection Committee by order dated 10.4.2002, their services could not have been termed against law and on this ground the order impugned suffered from legal infirmity. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties was not 2 inclined to interfere with the matter and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the services of the petitioner as laid down in the case of the State of Karnataka Vrs.Uma Devi reported in 2006 Vol. 4 SCC 1 was unfit for the regularization. In that view of the matter, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that once the Zila Parishad had taken a decision to regularize services of the petitioner and the same having not been rescinded the petitioner was entitled for regularization as well as salary. He also pointed out to the fact that in the same transaction three other persons have also been appointed and their services were regularized pursuant to the recommendation of the same Committee on the same date .He submits that they had also approached this Court in a different writ petition being CWJC No. 6004/2005, which was disposed off by order dated 28.3.2007 with a direction that the Director of Panchyati Raj shall issue notice to the petitioners by giving them adequate opportunity of hearing and after taking all the materials on record will decide the issue whether the petitioner’s continuation under the respondent Zila Parishad was in any manner an illegal decision taken by them. He points out to the order passed by the Director of Panchayati Raj dated 12.6.2007 which was passed pursuant to the direction issued in the above mentioned case in which it was held that it was for the Zila Parishad to consider the cases for regularization and payment of salary which shall be done taking into consideration various factors including financial position of the Zila Parishad. The consequential order passed by the Zila Parishad has been annexed as Annexure L/3 to the Memo of Appeal which is an order contained in memo no.36 dated 8.2.2008 of the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur by which the services of the three persons of the said Writ 3 petition was regularized. It was mentioned in the order that they would be paid salary from the internal resources of the Zila Parishad. In that view of the matter, learned senior counsel submits that the said persons being identically situated like the present appellant a similar direction may be issued in the present case also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present appeal with a similar direction to the respondents, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur, to consider the case for regularization of the appellant especially in the light of its own decision taken in the case of similarly situated person. Let the said decision be taken within the maximum period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order upon respondent No. 4. With the aforesaid directions the Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed off. Sudha/ Sudip (T.Meena Kumari, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)