IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ----------- Letters Patent Appeal No.301 of 2011 -------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 12-11-2009 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14430/09. ---------- 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Monitoring, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Darbhanga 5. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Madhubani...................................Appellants Versus Satish Chandra Jha, S/O Late Surya Narayan Jha, R/O Village- Muraitha, P.S. Kamataul, Distt. Darbhanga.. ................................................................. Respondents ----------- For the appellants :- Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-5 Mr. S.R.Sharan, A.C. to AAG-5 For the Respondents: Mr. Binodanand Mishra --------- 6 17-8-2011 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its officials who are appellants, has pointed out on the basis of annexure-5 that subsequently the writ petitioner was recommended for appointment and regularization on the 2 post of Chaukidar because the earlier recommendation was erroneous and no post of Caretaker existed in the department to accommodate the writ petitioner on such a post. We had given sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner (respondent herein) to show any document of the State Government creating the post of Caretaker in the concerned department. No such document could be produced before us. It cannot be expected from the appellants that they will produce any document to show negative facts such as non-creation of post of caretaker. We have no material to doubt the correctness of facts stated in annexure-5 as well as the stand of the appellants that no post of caretaker was created or sanctioned. The learned writ court did not go deep in the issue and only on the basis of earlier erroneous recommendation of the Committee it has directed for payment of regular wages of Caretaker to the writ petitioner who was regularized and appointed on the post of Chaukider at the fag end of service as caretaker and has already superannuated. In the facts of the case, this appeal is disposed of with clarification that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to 3 salary and emoluments of Chaukidar, the post on which he was ultimately appointed. The order of the writ court shall stand modified to that extent. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J )