IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1922 of 2010 (Arising out of CWJC No. 15245/2010) The Director ,Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastrinagar, Patna-23 ………………………..Respondent 4/Appellant. Versus 1. Javed Alam, S/o Syaid Md. Sami, resident of village-Purkhali, P.S.- Lalganj, District-Vaishali…………………Petitioner/Respondent 1st set. 2. The State of Bihar. 3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Saran, Chapra………………………………Respondents/Respondents 2nd set. For the appellant : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh Mr. M.Skhankar Roy ----------- 4. 20-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. By the order under appeal dated 17.09.2010, the Writ Court has allowed writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15245 of 2010 preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein on the ground that although he was in contract service only till 21.5.2009, the services of the writ petitioner could not have been terminated on account of certain allegations without following the provisions of Rule-54 of the relevant Regulations. The Writ Court has noted that under terms of the contract of service the Authority could have terminated the contract any time after giving one month 2 notice but since the termination order showed some allegations hence it was held that Rule-54 would apply. Since the contract service of the writ petitioner was terminated on 04.03.2009 before the contract came to an end on 21.5.2009, in our view there could be no direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service on 17.9.2010 when the writ petition was allowed. Without going into other issues such as relevance of Rule-54 in the contest of contract employment, we set-aside the direction of the Writ Court for reinstatement of the writ petitioner and for holding an enquiry, when the contract of service had already come to an end on 21.5.2009. In lieu, we direct the appellant and the concerned authorities to pay to the petitioner his emoluments to which he would be entitled by treating that he was in service till 21.5.2009. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that subsequently on 9.8.2011 the writ petitioner has been permitted to work on contract for the period 10.8.2011 till 31.3.2011. He has further submitted that since no enquiry could be held earlier in respect of the allegations, those allegations should not be taken into consideration against the writ petitioner. We clarify that further 3 contractual engagement of the writ petitioner will be governed by subsequent terms of contract and will not be affected by the out come of the judgment and order under appeal which is modified to this extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)