ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 23-02-2023 The present LPA is filed by the State of Bihar assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.01.2011 passed in CWJC No. 6892 of 2003.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was appointed in the year 1983 as a Chainman by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on daily wage basis, his services were ratified by the Director and he continued. In the year 1989, he was further appointed to the post of Accounts Clerk and continued as such till his services were terminated on 17.03.2003 vide (Annexure

6) of the writ-petition he was dismissed from service. It was subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 6892 of 2003. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ-petition. Extract of the order is reproduced here under:-

“This writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner’s reversion from Accounts Clerk was bad. Petitioner, accordingly, be reinstated as Accounts Clerk and dismissal of petitioner by virtue of Annexure-6 has to be quashed. It is, however, made clear that petitioner would get remuneration either as Chainman or as Accounts Clerk only for the period where he has so worked. In other words, for the period when he was reverted as Chainman and worked as Chainman notwithstanding entitlement of Accounts Clerk he would get remuneration of Chainman but from the time he is reinstated as Accounts Clerk he would be entitled to full remuneration of the Accounts Clerk keeping in view notional continuity in service as Accounts Clerk. The decision in this regard and payment in this regard must be made to the petitioner within three months by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.”

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, State preferred present LPA on the sole ground that initial appointment of the respondent was by an incompetent authority, therefore, further service conditions of the respondent is to be nullified. Accordingly, the State has taken a decision to dismiss him from service with reference to the post of Accounts Clerk.

4. In this regard learned counsel for the State relied on decision in the case of LPA No. 675 of 2000 and connected matter insofar as The State of Bihar vs. Siya Ram Choudhary and Ors. in LPA No. 681 of 2000. The Siya Ram Choudhary and Ors. filed Civil Appeal No. 5682-5684 of 2004 and it was decided against Siya Ram Choudhary and Ors. In the Siya Ram Choudhary case also the initial appointment was by an incompetent authority hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be dismissed in the light of decision in the case of Siya Ram Choudhary and Ors.

5. Per-Contra learned counsel for the respondent cited decision in the case of Bhola Rawat Vs. State of Bihar passed in CWJC No. 8063 of 2003 decided on 08.02.2008 further, LPA No. 392 of 2008 was decided on 12.07.2011 (State of Bihar Appeal) and further State of Bihar preferred petition before the Apex Court which is numbered as CC 13413/2012 State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Bhola Rawat in which State appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the cited decision on behalf of the State has no assistance for the State. It is also submitted that facts of the case of Siya Ram Choudhary is different from that of Brij Kishore Singh case. On the other hand, Brij Kishore Singh case is identical to that of Bhola Rawat.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. Respondent was appointed as a Chainman in the year

1983 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on daily wage basis. His services were ratified by the Director and he continued as such, thereafter, he was appointed as an Accounts Clerk. In this backdrop whether dismissing Respondent-Brij Kishore Singh in the year 2003 is in order or not?

8. No doubt it is true that initial appointment to the post of Chainman was by an incompe