IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.76 of 2009 Arjun Mahto, son of late Khedu Mahto, resident of village Bara Ajiyatu, P.S. Ghghra, District Gumla, Jharkhand……………………………………………………..……….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary (Primary and Adult Education), Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariate, Bikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 2. Director, Adult and Non-Formal Education Directorate, (now known as Directorate of Mass Education) Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariate, Bikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 3. Director (Administration)-cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariate, Bikas Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna. 4. District Education Officer, Patna……………………………………………………………..……….Respondents ----------- 3 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. It appears from Annexure-4, which is office order no.830 dated 07.04.2006 of the Human Resources Development Department, that petitioner and others have been appointed and posted on different posts of class IV, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 4716 of 1993. Petitioner is aggrieved by the consequential order of the respondent Director dated 09.06.2006 2 appointing him from the date of joining on a vacant post of orderly, apparently issued in terms of the directions contained in the said office order dated 07.04.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this way, petitioner is being treated as a fresh appointee and his initial appointment under the Adult Education Programme and, consequences flowing to him from cancellation of mass termination order by this Court by judgment and order passed in the said CWJC No. 4716 of 1993 is being completely overlooked. He submits that in CWJC No.4716 of 1993, a copy of the judgment of which is annexed as Annexure-1, the Association of the Employees of the Bihar State Adult & Non-formal Education moved this Court in which the present petitioner was also a party petitioner. The writ application was disposed of on 01.09.1993 with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the services of all the terminated employees of Adult Education 3 Programme and adjust them under the Non- Formal Wing of the Directorate. The said order was implemented by the respondents, but in piecemeal. Out of about 850 employees terminated from Adult Education Programme, all the rest, except 31, were absorbed in the Adult Education Wing of the Directorate. Pursuant to the said order, steps were also taken for absorption of rest 31 left out and, by order dated 11.01.2000, as contained in Annexure-3, 16 employees out of 31 were absorbed with same service condition as they were carrying before. Later on, the left over 14 have been appointed/absorbed by the said Annexure-4. He submits that those, who were absorbed in time, were allowed their salary and the same service condition of their previous service period, but only on account of delay, petitioner and others are being denied the same. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that 4 since petitioner was out of service between the period 01.03.1993 to 08.06.2006, he is not entitled for salary of the period on the principle of “no work no pay”, the relief which has been prayed by the petitioner in this writ application and, therefore, it is stated that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Petitioner does not dispute that he had not worked between the period 01.03.1993 to 08.06.2006. But it is rightly pointed out that final order, as contained in Annexure-4 appointing/ absorbing the petitioner, was issued by the respondents in 2006, in compliance to the orders passed in CWJC No. 4716 of 1993. Thus, it is apparent that the said order is being complied by the respondents in piecemeal. It was only bad luck of the petitioner that in the first stage of compliance to the orders, petitioner could not be included in the list of over 800 employees, who were appointed / absorbed, pursuant to the orders of this Court in the said writ 5 application. It was again bad luck of the petitioner that his name was not included in the list of 16 employees when Annexure-3 was issued in 2000. Respondents cannot find fault with the petitioner for this. If the employees of the Adult Education Programme were covered by the said orders of this Court passed in the said writ application on 01.09.1993 and the orders are being issued in compliance to the same, the same terms and conditions should apply in the case of all the employees, who were covered by the said orders of this Court while giving them relief in terms of the same. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of and the respondents are directed to give same service conditions of employment to the petitioner which was given to over 800 employees, who were absorbed in the first phase in compliance to the said orders of this Court which may include arrears of salary and continuity of service etc. In this respect appropriate 6 orders shall be issued by the concerned respondent within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)