JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Kumari Rashmi, learned counsel for the respondent- State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 30.09.2015 contained in annexure-7 and for quashing of order dated 23.06.2015 contained in annexure-8.

4. The petitioner is a land looser in the construction of the Punasi Dam Project. In terms of scheme of the Government, the petitioner was entitled for a job in the Irrigation Department, Deoghar and on verification of document, the respondent authority found the petitioner eligible and issued appointment letter dated 13.08.1992 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Government of Bihar stayed the appointment of the petitioner and others vide letter dated 14.09.1992 and the same was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 11394 of 1992 before the Patna High Court which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.1993 directing the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner. The petitioner again joined on 22.02.1993. When that order was not complied, a Contempt Application being M.J.C. No. 890 of 1993 was filed, pursuant thereto the petitioner was allowed to join vide order dated 29.09.1993. The petitioner was terminated from service on 20.02.1996 on the allegation of illegality in the list of dismissed persons and that order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 1006 of 1993 which was allowed and pursuant to contempt proceeding, the petitioner was allowed to join vide letter dated 24.03.1999. The petitioner filed representation contained for monetary benefit for the period he has been ousted from the service. Vide order dated 30.09.2015, the service of the petitioner was regularized for the period 01.03.1996 to 25.03.1999 but the petitioner was deprived of his salary for the said period. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.06.2015 the service of the petitioner was regularized for the period 14.08.2000 to 19.03.2002 but the petitioner was deprived of his salary for the said period contained in annexure 8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved with the said two orders, the petitioner moved before this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

5. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that for arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, petitioner has been deprived from working for the said period. He submits that on the intervention of the High Court, the petitioner was allowed to join twice. He submits that on all the occasions, there was arbitrary action on the part of the respondents that is why, the High Court interfered with. He submits that there is no suppression of the facts on the part of the petitioner. He submits that it is well-settled law that if the wilful action is there due to laches on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits. To buttress his argument, he relied upon judgment in the case of “ Shobha Dram Raturi Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Others” reported in (2016) 16 SCC 663 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

“1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was retired from service on 31-12-2002, even though he would have, in the ordinary course, attained his date of retirement on superannuation, only on 31-12-2005. The appellant assailed the order of his retirement dated 31-12-2002 by filing Writ Petition No. 751 of 2003. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 14-9-2010. The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:

“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed; order dated 31-12-2002