Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:—

“(i) For quashing the Order/Memo No 6778/Estt dated 20.10.2023 issued by Executive Director (Operations), BIADA (Annexure P/13), Patna whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BIADA) on 20.10.2023, in most arbitrary manner without compliance of the principles of natural justice and in complete violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, equity and against all the canons of justice.

(ii) For quashing the Order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Appeal Case No 3 of 2023 communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No 4603 dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P/16) by the Respondent No 2, whereby and where under the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed in a mechanical, arbitrary, pick and choose manner, whereas the similarly situated coterminus contractual employees have been reinstated considering the fact that the termination of the Petitioner is termination stigmatic and without compliance of the principles of natural justice, service jurisprudence and in teeth of the service procedure laid down by the decision of the Cabinet contained in Memo No 12534 dated 17.09.2018 (High Level Committee) illegal, arbitrary decision has been taken, which has no legs to stand in the eyes of law.

(iii) For the issuance of the direction in the nature of mandamus allowing Restituo in integru to his post with all consequential benefits.

(iv) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner be found entitled in the eye of law.”

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Engineer vide letter dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P/1) on contractual basis and an agreement in terms of Regulation 1.2.1 in Part II of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (Financial, Service and Technical) Regulations), 2007 (for brevity, 2007 Regulations) was also entered into on 02.11.2009. Subsequently, his services were extended time to time. Lastly, his services were extended in January, 2022. After completion of continuous service for 14 years, on the basis of certain allegations, show cause notice (Annexure P/5) dated 16.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner which has been duly replied by the petitioner vide Annexure P/5A dated 22.09.2023. Thereafter, invoking the provisions, as contained in Clause 1.5 (b) (iv) of 2007 Regulations, vide order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure P/13), services of the petitioner have been terminated which has been assailed by him before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide its order dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure P/16). Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the appointment of the petitioner was contractual but on the basis of recommendation by the High Level Committee, the Government of Bihar issued Memo No 12534 dated 17.09.2018. The decision of the State Government contained in Memo No 12534 dated 17.09.2018 manifestly mentions about Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (for brevity, BIADA) under the aegis of the Department of Industry in Table No 19 mentioned in Apendix A and BIADA was directed to implement Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of the recommendation of the High Level Committee. Clause 1 of the Recommendation of High Level Committee states that the appointment and the services of the contractual workers shall be considered to be permanent and shall come to an end either on the day such posts/positions are in force or till such posts are made permanent in nature. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue in his services till attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner was contractual employee but order of termination is a stigmatic order and, therefore, a full fledged enqu