IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6892 of 2003 Brij Kishore Singh, Son of Late Sri Kamla Singh, resident of Village-Amlori, P.S.-Siwan, District-Siwan. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Adv. For the State : SC-17. ------------ 05 12.01.2011 The petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 as Chainman by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on daily wages. His services were ratified by the Director and he continued. In 1989 he was then appointed as Accounts Clerk and continued as such till his present termination on 17.03.2003 and this is what has brought the petitioner to this Court. Counter affidavits, supplementary affidavit and rejoinders have been filed, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Learned counsel for both the sides agree that this writ petition is virtually same as the facts which were there in C.W.J.C. No.15159 of 2007 (Ashok Kumar Shahi Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. with analogous cases), which was disposed of on 18.02.2009, in so far as it related to reversion of similarly appointed Accounts Clerk to the post of Chainman, and in C.W.J.C. No.7766 of 2003 (Amrendra Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others), which was disposed of on 30.03.2010 wherein Chainman similarly appointed were dismissed. - 2 - In both the cases the action of the State in reverting and dismissing respectively were held to be bad. While agreeing to this, learned counsel for the State lodges one caveat. He states that the judgment would not apply if the post on which the petitioner was appointed as a Chainman was not a sanctioned post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a sanctioned post lying vacant. In my view, no useful purpose would be served keeping the matter pending any further once it is covered by the said two decisions as referred to above. It can only be made subject to post on which petitioner was posted being sanctioned. In case, if the authorities find that when the petitioner was recruited there was no such sanctioned post then the authorities would not be obliged to follow the judgment aforesaid, but if the posts were sanctioned then the two judgments would squarely apply and the petitioner’s services cannot be dispensed with nor the petitioner cannot be reverted. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner’s reversion from Accounts Clerk was bad. Petitioner, accordingly, be reinstated as Accounts Clerk and dismissal of petitioner by virtue of Annexure-6 has to be quashed. It is, however, made clear that petitioner would get remuneration either as Chainman or as Accounts Clerk only for the period where he has so worked. In other words, for the period when he was reverted as Chainman and worked as Chainman notwithstanding entitlement of Accounts Clerk he would get remuneration of Chainman but from the time he is - 3 - reinstated as Accounts Clerk he would be entitled to full remuneration of the Accounts Clerk keeping in view notional continuity in service as Accounts Clerk. The decision in this regard and payment in this regard must be made to the petitioner within three months by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)