Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, vide order No. TRN/T/11/81/27 dated 18.07.1981 issued by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Khonsa, he was appointed as a Work Charged Assistant Inspector of works in the said Department under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. He joined his duties on 20.07.1981. Though in the appointment order it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner in the said post, was for a period of 3 months only, he continued to serve in that capacity continuously without any break and also availed Government accommodation. Further, in the same capacity, he was transferred to other places of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and as such, for all practical purposes, he was in continuous services and he was under the impression that he would be regularly absorbed in the said post.

The further case of the petitioner is that after a gap of 6 (six) years, vide order No. DWR/SC-1/87-88 dated 12.11.87 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Division, Deomali, he was purportedly re-appointed the petitioner and 6(six) other similarly situated persons. It is contended by the petitioner that he was earlier appointed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Changlang, Arunachal Pradesh and his services were never terminated and as such, the 2nd appointment letter dated 12.11.87 so issued by the Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Sub- Division, Deomali, is, in fact, a subordinate officer, to the Executive Engineer. However, vide order No. DRW/WC-I/87-88 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Deomali, he was discharged from service w.e.f. 01.07.1988. Being highly aggrieved, he filed a writ petition viz. WP(C) 877/1990 and vide order dated 16.05.1990, the said respondent was directed to take back the petitioner in duty within one week. He, thereafter, submitted a copy of the Courts order before the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Sub-Division, Deomali, on 28.05.1990, along with his joining report, which was duly received by the office. Despite his reinstatement, the authority threatened him of eviction from his room where he used to reside. Situated thus, vide another writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to remain in the room until further order. This Court further held that since the order dated 16.05.1990 was not complied with within the period laid down, the respondents should explain as to why a contempt proceeding should not be initiated against them. In Civil Rule No. 877/1990, the respondents, meanwhile, filed an affidavit wherein it was stated that the Deomali Division of the Rural Work's Department was still ready to engage the petitioner as Casual Work Charged staff against any sanctioned scheme.

2. Mr. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in the mean time, the Rural Works Department was bifurcated into 3 (three) departments, namely, Rural Works Department; Irrigation and Flood Control Department; and Public Health & Engineering Department and the Deomali Sub-Division of Rural Works Department was declared as Irrigation and Flood Control Sub-Division.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after the order dated 23.07.92 passed by this Hon'ble Court the petitioner was re-instated in service under the said Deomali Sub-Division of RWD. Since the RWD was bifurcated into 3 (three) Departments and Deomali Sub-Division was brought under Irrigation and Flood Control Department, as such, a question was raised by the Irrigation and Flood Control Department as to whether the petitioner should be absorbed by the Irrigation and Flood Control Division, Deomali, though the petitioner was originally working in the RWD. As such, the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Flood C