IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.775 of 2011. Ramdeo Ram son of Late Muneshwar Ram, Resident of village Bastipur, P.S.Indrapuri District Rohtas. … Appellant. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Joint Secretary , Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Chief Engineer, , Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.The Chief Engineer, Mechanical, , Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6.The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Mechanical Circle, Mithapur, Patna. 7.The Superintending Engineer, Canal Circle, Patna. 8.The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Mechanical Davison, Dehri Rohtas at Sasaram. 9.The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Bathanaha, District Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub-division, Bathanaha, District Purnea. 11.The Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr.Satish Chandra Jha,No.3, Adv. For the State : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, A.A.G.II. 3. 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State in respect of limitation petition as well as on merit of the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition (I.A.No.3452 of 2011), the delay of six months and a few days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The I.A. is allowed. The appellant was admittedly a Khalasi in a Work Charge Establishment of Public Works Department. On the ground that he was working in such capacity from 1981, he made a claim for 2 regularization of his services or, in other words, for being included in the regular Establishment of the employees of the Department through a writ petition preferred in the year 2006. In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kar nataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 this Court ordered for constitution of a 3-Member Committee of different Secretaries of the State of Bihar for the purpose of scrutinizing such claim so that the appointments which were only irregular could be regularized. The claim of the appellant was rejected by the 3-Member Committee by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). On the basis of the decision of the 3-Member Committee dated 15th April 2009, contained in Annexure-1 the impugned order dated 13th July 2009 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Irrigation Sub-division, Bathnaha in the district of Purnea, Respondent no.10 communicated to the appellant/writ-petitioner informing him that on account of decision of the 3-Member Committee not to regularize the services of the appellant, he was being disengaged from service under the work charge Establishment with effect from 13th July 2009. The appellant preferred C.W.J.C.No. 4072 of 2010 challenging the order dated 13th July 2009. The writ petition has been dismissed by the order under appeal date d 24th September 2010 on the ground that an employee of the work charge Establishment cannot claim regularization in the regular Establishment of the State Government, in view of the law laid down in some judgments of the Apex Court, including that in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the 3 Public Works Department Code, there are provisions for taking work charge employees in the regular Establishment on fulfilment of certain conditions and such provisions are in existence from before the Constitution of India came into force in 1950. We have no hesitation in accepting the case of the State that such provisions cannot be used to help persons who are engaged without competing with others and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of entry in the regular service under the State. In fact, from Annexure-5 it appears that on 20th September 1990, a circular was issued by the State Government which is included in the Bihar Public Works Department Code. That circular drew a cut-off line in column 5 that only those Workcharge employee who were eligible for regularization till 21st October 1984 could be regularized. In Paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, the State has taken a clear stand that till 21st October 1984, the appellant had not completed the required 240 days and did not fulfil the requisite criteria prescribed for regularization by the State. In this regard the writ Court has also taken a proper view that claim for regularization was filed quite belatedly in the year 2006 and the same has been rejected by the 3-Member Committee in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi(supra). However, the other submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that even if his claim for regularization was not accepted he should not have been disengaged from the work charge Establishment only on account of rejection of such claim appears to be justified. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13th July 2009 discloses that the 4 only reason for removing the appellant from service in the work charge Establishment where he had rendered more than two decades of service was on account of rejection of his claim for regularization. In our considered view, such reason is not proper and lawful for terminating the service of the appellant from work charge Establishment. No doubt, an employee in a work charge Establishment may be disengaged, if the Establishment is itself wound up on account of the work having been completed, but then all the employees in the work charge Establishment will have to be treated similarly. In case the requirement of work diminishes, the only fair principle for disengagement will be ‘last come, first go’. No such consideration has been shown by the authorities, while disengaging the appellant vide the impugned order dated 13th July 2009. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 13th July 2009 disengaging the appellant from work charge Establishment is found to be contrary to law and is accordingly, quashed. As a result, the appellant shall be reinstated on the post held by him earlier in the work charge Establishment forthwith. He will be entitled to all consequential benefits. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)