IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.81 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus NAND KISHORE YADAV ----------- 03/ 09.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil review petition has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its authorities challenging order dated 01.02.2006 of this Court, by which C.W.J.C. No. 13892 of 2004 filed by the sole opposite party was disposed of quashing orders dated 12.01.2000 and 17.01.2000 (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition ) and declaring that the petitioner-opposite party became an employee of the permanent establishment of the State with effect from 21st June, 1996 in terms of the order by which he was appointed as a truck driver in the pay scale of Rs.975-25-1150-30-1540/- and there being no dispute that the petitioner had served as truck driver, let his salaries at the same scale, as stood altered from time to time, be released and paid to the petitioner, less whatever has been paid to him in the meantime, within a period of three months. The said order was passed after full consideration of the fact on the ground that from Annexure 3 to the writ petition, it was apparent that the driving skill of the petitioner was assessed by the competent authority of the State and it was found that he has satisfactorily passed such test and, accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of truck driver was confirmed and in that view of the matter the Superintending Engineer directed the Executive Engineer to release the salaries payable to the petitioner with effect - 2 - from the date he was engaged as truck driver in the regular establishment of the State. Thereafter the Chief Engineer also vide letter dated 23rd June, 1999 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) requested the Executive Engineer to release the due salaries of the petitioner as truck driver. It was also found that in defying the orders of superior authorities and after having made the petitioner to work in the permanent establishment for four years as a truck driver, the Executive Engineer, by his impugned orders (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition) purported to revert back the petitioner to the work charge establishment though as a truck driver. Hence, it was held that the orders of the Superintending Engineer/Executive Engineer were not permissible in law and the petitioner having been brought into the permanent establishment and having been confirmed there after passing his driving skill, and making him to work for more than four years, could not be reverted back to the work charge establishment. Learned counsel for the State and its authorities submits that the impugned order was passed in absence of their counsel and without any counter affidavit, which had been affidavited by the authorities much before. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid order under review that on the said date i.e. 01.02.2006 counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities was not present in court nor any such counter-affidavit was on record of the court as it was not filed by them. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any material to take - 3 - a different view nor does this Court find any other reason to review the said impugned order. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )