IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8501 of 2005 MURALIDHAR PRASAD, son of late Lala Sudhakar Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Shastri Nagar, P. S. Kashim Bazar District- Munger, at present working as clerk, Certificate Office, Munger. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Labour Employment Training Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Employment Labour Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Munger. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger. 6. The Deputy Collector, District Arms Section, Munger. 7. The District Certificate Officer, Munger ….Respondents ----------- 3. 24.06.2009. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Memo No. 108 dated 21.5.2005 issued under the signature of D.D.C. Munger, whereby and whereunder the authorities concerned has directed their Sub-ordinate not to take work from the employee of unemployment bonus scheme and has also further been directed not to withdraw the amount for their salary for the financial year 2005-2006 as their adjustment proceeding is going on. (ii) For quashing of letter no. 673 dated 1.7.2005 2 issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Munger in compliance of Memo No. 108 dated 21.5.2005 directing the authority concerned to not take work.” The petitioner, in fact, prior to filing of this writ application has filed CWJC No. 1431 of 2004 for quashing the order contained in letter no. 404 dated 1.9.2004 that writ petition has already been dismissed on 28.1.2008 and therefore the very base of the attack of the petitioner as explained in paragraph 17 of this writ application has evaporated. That apart, the respondents in the counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioner’s claim for absorption was under consideration and certain informations were sought for from the office of Collector of Munger district. In this context, respondents’ stand in paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- “8. That it is stated that on account of the stoppage of the scheme, the working employees should have been 3 removed from the service, as their services were co-terminus with the scheme, but the Government took a bold decision in their interest and under took a task to adjust them elsewhere in the Department of Labour, Employment & Training as is evident from para-2 of resolutions 373 dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure-C of the counter- affidavit). That as per the aforesaid decision of the Government the process for adjustment of the employees working under the scheme including the petitioners already get started and letters were issued to various District Magistrate of Bihar including D. M. Munger to send the bio-data’s of employees working under the scheme with an undertaking that their appointments were done according to rule and none of the employees working under the scheme had been left. 9. That it is stated that bio-data’s of about 130 Class-III employees working under the scheme reached the Directorate of Employment, Bihar Patna and after proper verification of records, the first list of 105 candidates was sent to the Directorate of Social securities for adjustment 4 against vacant post under them vide letter no. 992 dated 19.7.2005. The District Magistrate, Munger also sent the list of employees working under the scheme including the petitioner in their jurisdiction, but they did not provide the certificates of validity of the appointments of the employees including the petitioner, on account of which the name of the petitioner could not be sent for adjustment against vacant posts as yet. However, the District Magistrate, Munger has been directed accordingly to provide the wanting certificates immediately vide letter no. 970 dated 13.7.2005. It is worthful to mention here that as soon as they reach the Directorate of Employment, Bihar, Patna, they will be duly verified with the records and on finding them proper, the name of the petitioner along with others will be sent for adjustment against vacant posts as have been done earlier. ” The aforesaid stand of the respondents therefore definitely mitigates part of the grievance of the petitioner. The difficulty for this court is 5 that it cannot issue any positive direction because the petitioner has not enclosed his original appointment letter so that his rights flowing from the same can be culled out. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may approach the Collector of Munger District for doing the needful in terms of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit as quoted above. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application stands disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)