Judgment:
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the office order dated 19.3.2004 of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri, whereby and whereunder his adjustment on the post of Typist Clerk in the regular establishment vide order contained in letter No. 870 dated 11.5.1988 by the then Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Purnea has been cancelled after almost 16 long years.
2. According to the Chief Engineer, the said order of adjustment of the petitioner from Class IV to Class III was irregular as per Department's letter No. 3875 dated 19.8.1995 and as such he passed the order in the light of the Department's letter No. 1172 dated 11.8.1998, and, however, directed that no recovery of the alleged excess amount drawn by him shall be made.
3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1978 about 4159 posts of Class IV and about 7535 posts in 3rd grace were created since creation of 56 Circles and 225 Divisions in the then Irrigation Department (now renamed as Water Resources Department). It is stated that advertisements were published in different leading newspapers for filling up the posts in December, 1978. But before finalisation of selection procedure, a policy decision was taken by the respondent-State to fill up those posts from among the employees of the Work Charged Establishment, who were appointed on or before 21.8.1975. The petitioner was initially appointed as Chainman in the Work Charged Establishment on 12.12.1973 by the then Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Purnea. The State Government, vide its letter dated 19.2.1981 (Annexure 2) directed all the Chief Engineers to fill up the above mentioned posts by forming a permanent Establishment Committee under his Chairmanship and consisting of the respective Superintending Engineer and the District Welfare Officer as its members from the employees of the Work Charged Establishment according to their seniority and eligibility. On 19.2.1981 a selection committee was constituted by the respondent-Chief Engineer and in terms of clause 'Kha' of the aforementioned letter dated 19.2.1981 almost all the Work charged employees were appointed/adjusted against the posts created under the regular establishment by the concerned Chief Engineers.
4. According to the petitioner, though he was initially appointed or the post of Chainman by the then Executive Engineer, but in April, 1979 he was deputed in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Purnea on a vacant sanctioned post of Routine Clerk and his case was recommended for appointment on that post as the post was sanctioned at the Secretariat level which is evident from the letter dated 10.3.1986 (Annexure 3) issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Purnea. According to the petitioner, he was likely to be absorbed on the post of Routine Clerk and not adjusted against any regular post in pursuance of the Circular dated 19.2.1981 though many of his juniors were adjusted on different vacant regular posts as back as in the year 1982 by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Purnea. However, he could not be absorbed on the regular vacant post of Routine Clerk and thus he represented before the Chief Engineer and later he was adjusted on a regular vacant post of Typist Clerk with effect from 13,5.1988 in pursuance of the aforementioned letter dated 19.2.1981. He continued to function on the said post without any interruption whatsoever till 11.8.1993 under the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Purnea and thereafter he was transferred vide Department's order dated 28.6.1993 under the administrative control of the respondent-Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri where he joined and continue to function as Typist Clerk till date.
5. The petitioner passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 13.5.1992 and he also passed the Accounts Examination finally in first and second papers and preliminary in the third paper in the year 2000. However, suddenly an explanation was sought for from him by the respondent-Chief Engineer vide letter dated 12.9.2003 (Annexure 6) i.e., after 14 years of his adjustment: alleging that his adjustment from Class IV to Class III as Typist Clerk was irregular and as to why the same should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation, vide Annexure 7. Later, vide impugned order dated 19.3.2004 of the Chief ' Engineer, his adjustment on the post of Typist Clerk was cancelled with retrospective date, i.e., the date of adjustment.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar case of Ram Lakhan Prasad, this Court following the decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Rajak v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 3706 of 1997, disposed of on 15.1.1998) set aside the impugned order of cancellation/reversion of said Ram Lakhan Prasad vide order dated 8th January, 1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12325 of 1996 and the same also stands affirmed by the Division Bench by the dismissal of the appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 465 of 1998 filed by the State of Bihar and others, vide order dated 22.9.1998 (Annexure 8/1). The State went to the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1537 of 1998, which was dismissed by the Apex Court, vide order dated 9.2.1999 (Annexure 8/2) and, as such, the impugned order is fit to be set aside following various decisions of this Court, which has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Special Leave preferred by the State.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 on 5.1.2005 and later another counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf on 27.1.2006. A supplementary counter affidavit, sworn by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Water Resources, was also filed on behalf of the respondents an 27.1.2006. In the said affidavit, inter alia, it is contended that the persons, who were initially appointed in the Work Charged Establishment in Class IV posts, were/are required to be absorbed/regularised on Class IV posts itself in regular establishment and not on the higher post. According to them, persons subsequently regularised/absorbed from Work Charged to regular establishment were/are not entitled to get any regular promotion except time bound promotion. According to them, such regularisation in the regular establishment was made with post held by them and not against any sanctioned post with deal stipulation that such post would continue till his retirement or death, whichever may be earlier.
8. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that it is true that in similar case of Ram Lakhan Prasad (supra), the State went to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave which was dismissed by the Apex Court, but he ventured to submit that in the case of Shashi Bhushan Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1342 of 1999 and analogous case) another Hon'ble single Judge has held that the Government letter dated 19.2.1981 cannot be read to mean that those working in Class IV posts could be adjusted/absorbed against Class III posts on the ground that they possessed the qualification for the post and thus dismissed the writ petition. He further contended that since the case of Durganand Jha and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 4177 of 1995) involving the same issue has been referred to the Full Bench for consideration and large lumber of cases are dependent on the disposal of the case of Durganand Jha by the Full Bench, this Court may consider to either await disposal of this matter till the disposal of the matter before the Full Bench or the writ petition can be disposed of with similar observation as has been given by another Bench in the case of Yogendra Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 13743 of 2003), contained in Annexure F.
9. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned Advocate General. He has not been able to show that in the order dismissing the writ petition in the case of Shashi Bhushan Singh and others (supra), it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge that in similar case of Ram Lakhan Prasad (supra) similar order of cancellation/reversion was quashed and finally upheld up to the Apex Court vide order, contained in Annexure 8 series. In so far as the order passed in the case of Durga Nand Jha (supra) is concerned, that was passed before the order was passed in the case of Ram Lakhan Prasad (supra) as is evident from Annexure D.
10. It seems that against similar orders of reversion pursuant to the above mentioned similar decision to revert all including those who have been working on the promoted post; for pretty long time, many came to this Court by filing various writ petitions and except in the case of Md. Nizamuddin and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 1374 of 1999, disposed of on 31.7.2003), this Court allowed all such writ petitions, bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 3706 of 1997, 4246 of 2004, 4301 of 2004, 4303 of 2004, 4960 of 2004 and 8073 of 2005. In C.W.J.C. No. 3706 of 1997 Suresh Kumar Rajak, who was reverted from the post of Clerk to the post of Khalasi, in the same Department, this Court, vide judgment dated 5th January, 1998, set aside the order of reversion and further directed the respondents to consider his case for time bound promotion to higher grade of Correspondence Clerk in accordance with law, if so permissible. The State filed appeal against the said order, bearing L.P.A. No. 330 of 1998, which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.10.1998 and against the same Special Leave preferred by the State bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 00813 of 1999 has also bean dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 15.2.1999, contained in Annexure 16/2 filed in C.W.J.C. No. 5254 of 2004.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as against Class III post of Typist Clerk, It is true that the said appointment was made by way of absorption/adjustment but after fulfilment of required criteria. However, after serving more than 16 years, the authority has ventured to reopen the matter by considering the legality of the appointment itself and has reverted him to the post of Chainman by the impugned order.
12. In the case of Suresh Kumar Rajak (supra), where the authority had reopened the matter to consider the legality of his appointment after 16 years, this Court in the writ petition filed by him after considering all the niceties of the case as well as legal aspect ultimately reached to the conclusion that the orders of reopening the appointment after 16 years and reverting him to the post of Khalasi were illegal and consequently all those orders were quashed. In L.P.A. No. 330 of 1998 by order dated 14,10.1998 after perusing the record and considering the above aspect, the Division Bench found that the order passed by the Writ Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference and accordingly dismissed the appeal, which stands affirmed by dismissal of Special Leave by the Apex Court.
13. Despite lapse of almost six long years since the dismissal of said Special Leave to Appeal by the Apex Court, the authorities completely ignoring it are bent upon to proceed to revert such employees after they have served for quite long period. The petitioner served satisfactorily on the promoted post for 16 years, which is not disputed by the leaned counsel for the State. This only shows callousness on the part of the State authorities in dealing with such matters so much so that they have no respect for the order of the Apex Court also and this has unnecessarily burdened this Court by filing of several writ petitions against such arbitrary action of the State authorities, including of the same Department.
14. Recently, this Court in the case of Maheshwar Jha v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 5254 of 2004, disposed of on 4.1.2006), considering that it was the duty of the State to bring full facts before the Court dealing with similar matter but it purposely suppressed the orders parsed in similar case, which stood affirmed by 1 he dismissal of the Special Leave by the Apex Court, held that the authorities of the respondent-State have no respect for the orders of this Court and the order passed by the Ape; Court and for such callous act on the part of the State authorities awarded exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) to be paid by the State and the same be recovered from the concerned authority from his pocket, who failed to bring it to the notice of the State Government and all concerned before the issuance of the impugned orders.
15. In the present case also on the request of the learned State Counsel, earlier the matter was adjourned on 18.1.2006 and thereafter twice it was passed over for the day for re-consideration by the State authorities at their own level. Despite this, the State has ventured to contest the matter, which apparently shows that the State authorities have no respect for the orders of this Court and also for the orders passed by the Apex Court and for such callous acts of theirs, thus Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding exemplary cost of Rs. 50.000/- (Fifty thousand) to be paid by the State by depositing the same with the Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Aid and Advice and the same shall be recovered from the concerned authorities, who despite opportunity granted by this Court have not bothered to reconsider the matter at their own level.
16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) to be deposited by the State with the Secretary, Patna High Court Legal Aid & Advice within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order and the amount of cost shall be recovered from the concerned authority, as directed above. The impugned order of reversion dated 19.3.2004 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue on Class III post of Typist Clerk and give all consequential benefits as directed in the case of Suresh Kumar Rajak (supra), including financial benefits.