IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2499 of 2010 1. BHOLESHWAR KAMATI, SON OF SRI BHOKI LAL KAMATI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LALMANIYAR, P.S. LANKAHAR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 2. RAMASHRAY KUMAR, SON OF SRI MOGAL TANTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADDAULI, VIA BARAUNI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 3. DILIP KUMAR, SON OF SRI SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REWA, P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA. 4. ARUN KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAJMATI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKHURAINI (MANSI BAZAR), DISTRICT KHAGARIA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI AMIR SUBHANI, THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. SRI NEEL MANI, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI BALDEO PRASAD, THE D.I.G. DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA. 4. SRI RAVINDRAN SHANKARAN, THE D.I.G. MANAUADHIKAR, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. SRI RANJIT MISHRA, THE S.P., DARBHANGA. 6. SRI AJITABH KUMAR, THE S.P., SAMASTIPUR. 7. SMT. MANJU JHA, THE S.P., MADHUBANI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS/CONTEMNORS. ********* For the petitioners :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. K.N. Sahay, Advocate For the respondents :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, A.A.G. XI 8 5.1.2011 A second show cause has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur purportedly in compliance of the order of this Court dated 21.4.2010. I may clarify here that the order dated 21.4.2010 has been passed relying on an earlier order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 4808 of 2002, disposed of on 22.2.2008. This order of the Court was confirmed in L.P.A. No. 627 of 2008, disposed of on 21.11.2008. The order of the L.P.A. was challenged in the Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed. A stand has been taken on behalf of the State that they are filing an L.P.A. against the order of this Court dated 21.4.2010 which ofcourse they are 2 entitled to do. In any event, considering that there are two orders of this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur has passed an order reinstating the petitioners in service vide Annexure-B to the show cause filed on behalf of O.P. No. 6 contained in Memo No. 22 dated 3.1.2011. Unfortunately even while passing this order, although the Superintendent of Police has acknowledged that he is reinstating the petitioners in service and also granting them the seniority to which they were entitled by virtue of the order that the order of termination was illegal, it has been mentioned in the order that the appointment is on temporary basis. An oral explanation offered before this Court is that temporary appointments are offered in cases of initial appointment. However, it is obvious that it is not an initial appointments rather it is reinstatement of the petitioners in service. It is next submitted that perhaps the word ‘vLFkk;h’ has been used under the impression that the appointment would be subject to the orders in the L.P.A. Obviously, the orders of the Single Bench are subject to the orders of the L.P.A. or S.L.P. filed before the Apex Court. I, therefore, must clarify that this order needs to be revised and the term ‘vLFkk;h’ should be removed from the order dated 3.1.2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks. This application is, thus, disposed of. With the aforesaid observation. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)