IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.698 of 2003 SHREE SHIVENDU PATHAK, son of Shri Jagdish Pathak, Resident of Club Road,Aurangabad, PS Aurangabad, District Aurangabad ……. Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Road Construction Department Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department Govt. of Bihar 4. Union of India, through Chairman,Central Water Commission, Ministry of Irrigation, Seva Bhawan, R K Puram, New Delhi, Govt. of India …… Respondents ----------- 08- 8.5.2009 Heard Mr.Chittaranjan Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Kumar Choubey, learned Govt. Pleader no.VII for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Binodji Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India. This writ petition is directed against that part of the order bearing letter no.8738 (S), dated 18.11.2002 (Annexure-1), issued by the Government of Bihar in the Road Construction Department, whereby he has been denied the benefit of seniority for the period 18.6.86 to 24.7.87. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner passed the B. Tech. Examination in Civil Engineering from Bangalore. He worked for the period 18.6.86 to 24.7.87, with the Central Water Commission, Irrigation Department, Govt. of India. He had appeared at the examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, and was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Bihar Government which he joined on 25.7.87 - 2 - (Annexure 11). The petitioner later on submitted his representation before the respondent authorities that the period he had worked with the Central Water Commission should be prefixed to his seniority, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner has stated in paragraphs 18 to 22 that similarly circumstanced Engineers have been given the benefit of seniority by prefixing the period during which they had worked with various governmental agencies. The writ petition states the names of similarly circumstanced persons who later on joined the Bihar Government, though as Junior Engineers. Paragraph 19 of the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow by way of illustration:- “19. That, Shree Laxmi Chand Sharma had rendered his service to Northern Railway, Government of India, with effect from 5.2.1959 to 23.3.1961 and the said period had been added in the length of service of said Sri Laxmi Chand Sharma while counting his service rendered to the State of Bihar as will be evident from letter no.155 dated 3.8.1982 of Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar.” The petitioner has given reasonable details with respect to four persons, namely, Laxmi Chand Sharma, Kameshwar Prasad, Jagannath Prasad Srivastava, and Braj Bhushan Das Agrawal in other paragraphs of the writ petition. The respondents did not answer this question in their counter affidavit as a result of which this Court, by orders dated 26.2.2003, 18.4.2003, and 14.5.2003, directed respondent nos. 1 to 3 to make specific statements with respect to the averments in paragraphs 18 to 22 of the writ petition. Respondents nos. 1 to 3 have in paragraph-13 of their second supplementary counter affidavit sworn on 8.5.2003, stated as follows :- - 3 - “13. That it is further stated that no express order rescinding/canceling in each individual cases have not been passed. The irregularities/illegality has been rectified by issuing the aforesaid gradation list. 4. The respondents have also stated in their counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit that five persons were in fact granted the benefit of seniority by prefixing the period they had served with other governmental agencies but were rectified in due course. They have tried to substantiate this claim by the aforesaid statements made in paragraph-13 of the supplementary counter affidavit, and have also annexed extracts of the final gradation list in an effort to establish that allegedly irregular benefit given to the said five Junior Engineers were withdrawn. The aforesaid statement made in paragraph 13 of the supplementary counter affidavit is wholly inadequate to meet the charge of discrimination levelled by the petitioner, and seems to be an eye-wash. Furthermore, the extracted portion of the final gradation list does not mention the names of five persons. 5. I must note the preliminary objection raised by the learned government pleader that the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand consequent upon bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar. In his submission, the writ petition cannot proceed in the absence of the State of Jharkhand. I do not find it possible to accede to the submission for the reason that the erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated with effect from 15.11.2000. The period in question is of much earlier date. The preliminary objection is rejected. - 4 - 6. We are, therefore, left with no option but to reach the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination, as similarly circumstanced persons mentioned in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the writ petition were given the benefit of past services in other governmental bodies. We are convinced that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of seniority from 18.6.86 to 24.7.87, the period he had spent with the Central Water Commission, Govt. of India, an instrumentality of the Govt. of India, and shall be prefixed to his seniority in the Bihar Government. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl