IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.737 of 2004 BUDHESHWAR PASWAN SON OF LATE TILAK PASWAN, RESIDNET OF MOHALLA MADANPUR CHAUBEY, P.S. MUZAFFARPUR SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- For the Petitioer :- Mr. R. K. Sinha. For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. I. ---- 4 02/07/2010 Many a persons came to be appointed on various posts by the District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur. They were for a while given even pay scale but the government refused to take over their services on the ground that the appointment was made by non-governmental agencies, the programme was being carried out on the basis of funding out by the Central Government and a government circular dated 28.2.1994 which is annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State laid down distinctions between such employees who were appointed by non-governmental - 2 - organizations and the District Industries Centre as such. Writ applications were filed by many employees sometime in the year 1994. All those cases came to be clubbed together and heard by a learned Single Judge and the judgment in question is Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Annexure-B was quashed by Annexure-C and a direction was given for appointment. A committee was set up. People were shortlisted which included the petitioner as well but final appointment did not accrue in favour of the petitioner. He had to come before the High Court in the present writ application seeking relief. First contention of the petitioner is that the question which is sought to be raised against the petitioner in the present writ application was fairly answered by the learned Single Judge by his order contained in Annexure-C. Another aspect which has been pointed out is that yet another person, namely, Shailendra Kumar was treated in similar fashion and he took shelter of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5289 of 2003 taking background to the dispute and the adjudication made earlier by the High Court. Writ application of Shailendra Kumar was allowed vide order dated 21.01.2004. - 3 - Said order has been annexed by the petitioner in his reply to the counter affidavit as Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in face of two judicial orders there is a clear cut case of discrimination against the petitioner as similarly situated other persons have been accommodated after judicial intervention but the petitioner’s case was not considered arbitrarily. The stand of the State is reflected in paragraphs 6 and 10 of the counter affidavit. State could have had an arguable case provided the decision of the State date 28.2.1994 was not considered in the batch of writ applications, the order of which is annexure-C to their counter affidavit. Reading of the counter affidavit and on hearing submission of the learned counsel for the State, governmental order dated 28.02.1994 seems to be the sheet anchor of the stand of the State. But since the order dated 28.092.1994 has been knocked out by the High Court earlier and many other persons have been given the benefit of appointment under the State with yet another order passed in the case of Shailendra Kumar also accruing in favour of the employee, there is no reason why the present petitioner - 4 - should be treated in any other fashion or manner for equals must be treated as equals and no fine distinction can be allowed to be made on spacious grounds when the same ground exist even in this case. Court has been made to understand that the two orders passed by the learned Single Judges were not interfered with by any other Bench. If that is so, then the petitioner too acquires a right for appointment under the respondents like the other erstwhile employees. This writ application is allowed with a direction upon respondent nos. 2 and 4 to take up the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders for his appointment under the District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur or such other place where the government would like to utilize his services. The Court expects that the decision would be rendered in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order since the matter is lingered and carried out for many a years now. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)