The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities are duty bound to deal with the matters as per the law and spirit of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the petitioners' initial appointments were not illegal.

1. This is a batch of 165 cases, out of which, 160 cases are Writ Petitioner and 5 cases are Letters Patent Appeals, which have arisen out of interlocutory orders passed in some of the aforesaid writ cases.

2. So far LPA Nos. 150 of 2005, 153 of 2005 and 225 of 2005 (Serial Nos. 159, 160 and 161) are concerned, they are barred by law of limitation but interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning the delay and copies thereof have been served upon the other side. LPA Nos. 111 of 2006 and 122 of 2006 (Serial Nos. 162 and 163) are also barred by law of limitation and interlocutory applications for condoning the delay have been filed but copies thereof have not been served upon the learned Counsel for the other side, However, the writ petitions, out of which the said two Letters Patent Appeals have been filed, are pending and are included in the aforesaid batch of writ cases at serial Nos. 149 and 148 respectively and the respondents of these appeals are petitioners in those writ cases.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances and considering the points raised in the aforesaid interlocutory applications filed in the five Letters Patent Appeals, we find that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay and accordingly the delay in filing the five Letters Patent Appeals are condoned and the said interlocutory applications are allowed.

4. In these matters, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of orders of the State of Bihar (Public Health Engineering Department) issued vide various memos dated 13th April, 2002 under the signature of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department of Public Health Engineering, Government of Bihar directing the petitioners to show cause as to why their appointments in the work charge establishment be not reverted to daily wages with benefits of daily wages with effect from 13.4.2002 as their appointments in the work charge establishment were found illegal and not made according to the resolution of the Finance Department vide memo No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987.

5. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has been that they were duly appointed by the competent authority prior to the fixed date 1.4.1982 on the basis of the decision of the Departmental Committee and were absorbed in the regular scale of pay in the work charge establishment and have continued in service on sanctioned strength posts with satisfactory service since 1980-82. They further claimed that the State Government has itself laid down a policy decision of cut off date of 1.1.1988 with respect to daily wages and work charge establishment employees for their regularisation, but instead of regularising their services the petitioners are sought to be reverted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also averred that with respect to the work charge employees the circular of the State Government contained in F.D. memo No. 1344 dated 4.2.1949 is a statutory rule framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India which envisages that such employees on completing one year continued approved service will be included as permanent employees in the permanent establishment, hence the petitioners who had admittedly been working on the approved posts in the establishment for more than 22 years were legally to be included as permanent employees but instead they are sought to be reverted. This also finds support from Rule 59(3) of the Bihar Public Works Department Code.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also stated that even for daily wagers the cut off date provided by the State Government for consideration of their regularisation on completion of 240 days was 1.8.1985 which was subsequently enhanced to 11.12.1990 by the State Government itself, but the Government is oblivious of the said facts and is taking action against the petitioners who had been admittedly working since much prior to 1990 or 1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also averred that they had been duly appointed