IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1947 of 2010 (Arising out of CWJC No. 3982 of 2005) Ram Ganesh Prasad Singh, son of late Ram Janam Singh, Resident of village-Usari, Post office and Police Station –Dawath, District-Rohtas, Presently residing at Gandak Project Colony, Gitwarpur, Police Station- Town and District Samastipur… …………………………………Appellant. Versus (1) The State of Bihar. (2) The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna. (3) The Engineer-in-Chief (North), Department of Water Resources, Bihar Patna. (4) The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Samastipur Zone, Samastipur. (5) The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Department of Water Resources, Samastipur. (6) The Superintending Engineer, Design Circle, Department of Water Resources, Samastipur. (7)The Executive Engineer, Design Division No. 3, Department of Water Resources, Samastipur. (8) The Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, District-Samastipur. …………Respondents. ------------------ 3. 24-10-2011 Heard the parties in respect of limitation. For the reasons mentioned in this interlocutory application, the delay of 53 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 10170/2010 is allowed. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and has upheld the order of reversion dated 3.12.2004 in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Durganand Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 259. The gist of all arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is reliance upon provisions in the P.W.D. which were considered by the Full Bench and it was held that since persons of 2 Work Charge Establishment are engaged without paying regard to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, hence they cannot be brought into Regular Establishment. The distinction between Work Charge and Regular Establishment was explained by the Full Bench before coming to the aforesaid decision. The impugned order 03.12.2004 discloses that it was passed after giving opportunity of show cause to the appellant. The order also considered certain judgments and orders of this Court in other cases and the view taken by the authorities gets full support from the Full Bench judgement noticed above. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. In our view the impugned order only means that the appellant should be treated to have continued in class-IV post through-out his service period. However, it is clarified that there is no order for making any recovery from him of higher salary for the period he worked as class III employee . Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)