The State Of Bihar vs Baliram Singh

4. If by the aforesaid employees, their earlier charges are not handed over, then only after handing over earlier charge, joining shall be made at new posted place.

10. The   aforesaid   appointed   employees   shall   submit affidavit in the context of their appointment at the time of joining   stating   therein   that,   their   appointment   is   made   in formal   way   and   as   per   rule   and   if   in   future   their appointment   is   found   illegal/irregular,   then   their   service shall be terminated and they shall be liable to punishment.

With   the   aforesaid   directions/observations,   these   writ applications are, thus, disposed of. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.”

3. Their   adjustment   shall   be   deemed   new appointment   and   on   the   basis   of   their   service   prior   to retrenchment   benefit   of   seniority   shall   not   be permissible   to   them   but   their   service   prior   to retrenchment   shall   be   calculated   for   the   purpose   of pension.

3 Decided on March 2, 2016 in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2016 and connected appeals.  19 the fact situation of the present case by invoking Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

13. The appellants, therefore, carried the matter in appeal by way   of   Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.2307   of   2016   before   the Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.   The   Division   Bench   also disposed   of   the   appeal   vide   impugned   judgment   and   order dated 15th January, 2018, which reads thus:

be   found   with   the   impugned   decision   of   the   High   Court   for having   followed   the   decision   in  Smt.   Ram   Laxmi   Mishra (supra), which has been upheld by this Court by dismissal of the   concerned  Special Leave Petition. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

21. For   the   reasons   already   recorded,   the   argument   under consideration does not commend to us. As mentioned earlier, the factual position stated in the decisions in which relief has 10  1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421 31 been   given   to   the   petitioners   in   the   concerned   petitions   is distinguishable. More importantly, in those petitions, order of termination   was   the   subject   matter   of   the   challenge   and, having set aside the impugned termination, the court granted consequential   relief   of  reinstatement  with   back­wages  to  the concerned petitioner(s). The respondents herein, however, for reasons   best  known  to them, did not challenge the  order  of termination   which   event   had   occurred   w.e.f.   1st  April,   2001 consequent   to   abolition   of   the   scheme   in   which   they   were employed. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed, having acted upon the terms and conditions upon which they came to be engaged vide appointment letter dated 16 th March, 2007.

22. Accordingly,   this   appeal   must   succeed.   The   impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   on   15 th January,   2018   in   LPA   No.2307   of   2016   is   quashed   and   set aside.  The   writ  petition filed by  the respondents, being  Civil 32 Writ  Jurisdiction  Case No.22208 of  2013,  stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

October 29, 2018.