IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7024 of 2010 Shambhu Nath Jha, son of Shri Digamber Jha, At & P.O.- Sugama, Via. Sonbarsa Raj, P.S. Salkhua, District-Saharsa. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate-Cum- District Collector, Saharsa, P.O. + P.S.-& District-Saharsa 2. The District Magistrate-Cum-District Collector, Saharsa 3. The Block Development Officer-Cum-Circle Officer, Banama Itahari, P.O.Banama, O.P. Banama Itahari, P.S.Salkhua, District-Saharsa. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Promod Mishra, Adv. For the State: Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P.14 Mr. Subodh Kumar A.C.T.G.P.-14 3. 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition was filed on 13.04. 2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. Despite passage of more than 1 and half years, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed in accordance with law and he was wrongly terminated on the ground of being an illegal appointee leading to filing of C.W.J.C. No. 7388 of 1999 and others which was heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 5136 of 1999 and disposed of on 14.01.2005 with directions to examine the legality of the appointment and then take appropriate action. It is submitted that after examining matters the respondents reinstated the petitioner on 02.09.2005 by a speaking order reviving the original appointment letter of 1999. However, later on 22.10.2005 they have directed 2 him to be treated as a fresh appointee. The submission is that if on remand by the Court, the respondents were satisfied that the termination was not in accordance with law and passed appropriate reasoned order for reinstatement by reviving the appointment, the order dated 22.10.2005 is not only contrary to the law but is in the teeth of the earlier order dated 02.09.2005. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to count his service period from the original appointment in 1999 for purposes of pension, ACP and other service benefits by giving him benefit of continuity as he was kept away from work for no valid reason. Counsel for the State has raised objection that the petitioner cannot be given benefit of seniority and arrears of wages as he has filed the writ petition nearly five years later raising issues of no work no pay. The petitioner is held entitled to continuity of service for all purposes except salary and seniority from the date of his original appointment in the year 1999. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. Ravi/- (Navin Sinha, J.)