Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.I, for the respondents.

2. Whether the resolution/notification No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 can be applied upon the petitioner is the moot question that has to be decided in this case.

3. According to the petitioners, by an order dated 9.7.1980 the Chief Engineer. National High Ways Project terminated the services of several employees including the petitioner and thereafter by order dated 4.4.1981 issued by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. National High Ways as contained at Annexure 2, the retrenched staff including the petitioner were taken back in service. The name of the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 (and father of the Petitioner No. 2), namely, Ajay Kumar Sinhas name was mentioned at SI. No. 1 of running page 31 of this Writ Application.

4. On 5.4.1984 by Annexure 5 a letter was issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar through the Department of Finance, wherein it was inter alia informed that pursuant to the demands raised by the PWD Mazdoor Union, it had been decided that work charged employees who had completed five years of continuous service should be regularly absorbed. Earlier the provisions appear to have been ten years of continuous service. It was further communicated that after 25.7.1995 all work charged employees who had completed a continuous period of five years satisfactory service, should be regularized and approval of the Department of Finance would be obtained. The petitioners have stated that on 22.10.1984, the Department of Finance approved the aforementioned decision communicated by letter dated 5.4.1984 and further observed that after 23.7.1975 no further work charged posts be sanctioned nor any vacant posts be filled up by work charged employees. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that subsequently, by a letter dated 10.7.1992, the Superintending Engineer wrote to the Chief Engineer recommending the case of the petitioner for regular absorption. However, inspite of the aforesaid recommendation, other persons whose names have been mentioned in Annexure 7 were regularized by letter dated 13.8.1992, but strangely, the name of the petitioner was left out and thereafter nothing happened and in the meantime, on 7.1.1991, the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 (and father of the Petitioner No. 2) died in harness.

5. Consequently, by annexure 8, the Petitioner No. 1 requested the Executive Engineer for compassionate appointment as also for other interrelated benefits.

6. According to the respondents, the main stand taken by them is to be found at paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit which says that Ajay Kumar Sinha (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) having not completed five years of continuous service on 21.10.1984 as per the resolution dated 23.10.1987 cannot claim regularization of service. Countering the aforementioned submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure 10 of the Supplementary Affidavit, submits that Clause 4 of the said resolution (Annexure 10) splits and categorises the conditions into two, viz. :--

(a) Persons appointed by the competent authority; and

(b) Those work charged employees who had completed a continuous period of five years till 21.10.1984.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Late Ajay Kumar Sinha fell in the first category, i.e., he was appointed by a competent authority and that being the position, his case should not be confused with the second category, i.e., having to complete a continuous five years of service upto 21.10.1984.

8. Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.I. has produced for perusal of this Court, the original resolution dated 23.10.1987 and has reacted sharply to the typed version brought on record vide Annexure 10 and has stated that in the original resolution in Clause 4 there is