IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1140 of 2005 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF-CUM-SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H. CIRCLE, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. MECHANICAL DIVISION, DARBHANGA …..… RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS Versus 1. TARAKANT PATHAK, SON OF LATE TEJ NARAYAN PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHACHRAHA, P.S. BASOPATTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI 2. RAGHUNATH SAHNI, SON OF SHRI SUBE SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DATH, P.S. BIRAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ….PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. A.C. to S.C. No.III For the Respondents : M/s G.K.Jha & S.K.Jha, Advocates *** - 2 - 6. 12.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the respondents. The order under appeal dated 11.5.2005 has been passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction to hold that when the interim order not to revert the petitioners was passed in another writ application of 2002, the reversion had not taken place and hence the interim order protected the writ petitioners from reversion during the pendency of the writ petition. After noticing a Government decision the writ court also directed for payment of salary to the writ petitioners if work was being taken from them on regular basis and payment of their dues till the disposal of the writ petition of 2002 which was then pending. The Government order noticed by the writ court had the effect of sanctioning payment of salary to those in whose favour interim order had been passed by the court. Learned counsel for the appellants i.e. State of Bihar submitted that such direction should have been obtained only in pending writ application of 2002 and not by filing a - 3 - substantive writ petition in the year 2003 which has been allowed to a limited extent by the order under appeal. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in order to get the controversy settled – whether they were reverted prior to passing of the interim order or not and whether they were entitled to benefit of the subsequent government decision for payment of salary , the writ petitioners were advised to seek remedy through writ petition. Having considered relevant aspects of the matter, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order under appeal only on the ground that such order should have been passed in the earlier writ application or in a contempt application. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. In that view of the matter, there is no need to condone the delay in preferring this appeal. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (J.N.Singh, J.)