Letters Patent Appeal No.781 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 30.04. 2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5355 of 2009) VASANT KUMAR son of Late Upendra Jha, resident of village, Umapat Basant P.S. Aurai, District- Muzaffarpur. --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Director (Technical), Handloom and Sericulture, Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Assistant Director, Sericulture, Purnea. ------------------------ (Respondents) For the Appellant :-Mr. Barun Kumar Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Bhagish Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State :-Mr. Ram Pd. Singh, A.C. to A.A.G.I P R E S E N T HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ******* Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. By the order under appeal dated 30th of April, 2009 the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5355 of 2009 preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that by a reasoned order the appellant’s case for regularization was rejected by the authorities 2 vide order dated 3.9.2008(Annexure-28 to the writ petition). It was also indicated by the writ Court that case of the appellant for regularization does not meet the requirements laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. versus Uma Devi and Ors.(3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Before us a simple argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that while the appellant was appointed on adhoc basis on the post of Clerk on 13.7.1985 vide Annexure-1 for a period of six months and again on 24.1.1986 vide Annexure-4, the three other persons similarly appointed on adhoc post for six months vide a later order dated 9th of September, 1986 (Annexure-5) along with two others were regularized in service from the date of their appointment on adhoc basis by order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure-12/B). It appears that some more benefits were given to those employees regularized vide Annexure-12/B vide a subsequent order dated 2.5.1998 contained in Annexure-12/C. Annexures-12/B and 12/C contain reference to the orders passed in a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9871 of 3 1995. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed in similar manner as the persons covered by Annexures 12/B and 12/C but from an earlier date and in spite of his remaining in continuous service for more than 18 years, the authorities chose to ignore his case for regularization and subsequently terminated his service by an order dated 3.12.2005 and after an order of remand by this Court, the representation of the appellant was again rejected by the order under challenge in the writ petition, dated 3.9.2008. In substance, his submission is that claim of the appellant, in spite of being superior to that of some other employees covered by Annexures 12/B and 12/C, has been arbitrarily ignored by the concerned respondents who have conferred the benefit of regularization to some others who were appointed later and in the same fashion only because they had approached this Court through a writ petition. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 it appears that in paragraph 13 the facts relating to Annexures 12 series have been admitted with 4 an explanation that those orders have been passed in compliance of the directions/orders of the Hon’ble High Court. If the orders of the Hon’ble High Court were accepted by the respondents as correct and implemented giving benefit to persons similarly situated as the appellant in that event the respondents clearly erred in law in treating the appellant differently and ignoring his claim for regularization only because he had not approached this Court through a writ petition. Such action of the respondents was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. At the relevant time when Annexures 12/B and 12/C were passed by the concerned respondents in the year 1997 and 1998, it was their legal duty to treat all similarly situated adhoc employees in like manner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the appellant was dismissed from service in the year, 2005 on account of illegal discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated adhoc employees regularised by Annexures 12/B and 12/C. There is no denial that those employees are still continuing in service as 5 regular employee. As per law settled in the case of Uma Devi (Supra), the old transactions of regularization of services, already concluded are not to be re-opened on account of judgment in Uma Devi’s case. Hence in this case requirement of justice warrants grant of relief to the appellant so that equality clause in the Constitution of India is not offended. In that view of the matter we quash the impugned order challenged in the writ petition dated 3.12.2005 as well as 3.9.2008. As a result, the appellant would be reinstated in service as an adhoc employees, the status which he enjoyed at the time of passing of order dated 3.12.2005 (Annexure-23) to the writ petition. The writ petitioner should be reinstated forthwith along with consequential benefits of pay etc. to be paid within a period of three months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. Thereafter the concerned respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the same manner and in the light of law prevailing at that time when they considered the case of the other similarly situated employees covered by Annexure-12/B and 6 12/C and the order for regularization of his service in similar terms should be issued without any delay preferably within a period of four months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. The order under appeal is set aside and this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The Patna High Court Dated 17th of September, 2009 Bibhash NAFR (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)