Judgment S. K. Mookerji, A. K. Ganguly, JJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners, Asbok Kumar and thirteen others, by this writ petition, pray for quashing the order dated 30th December, 1992, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road circle, Purnea. The said order is Annexure-11 to this writ petition. 3. By the said impugned order, the service of the petitioners have been terminated. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the materials on record, we are disposing of this writ petition finally at the stage of admission. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that earlier the petitioners bad filed a writ petition bearing C. W. J. C. No.2460 of 1982 and that writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court by a judgment dated 24-7-1991, a copy whereof is Armexure-5 to this writ petition. It is clear from the said judgment tbat the petitioners were appointed in regular work-charged establishment of the P W D in Araria district in the year 1981 as class IV employees on different post on diverse dates. The appointment of the petitioners were subsequently regularised by an agreement dated 24-9-1981, entered into between the Executive Engineer and the Sub divisional Officers, P. W. D. , Araria and also the Joint Secretary and other officers of the Union to which the petitioners belonged. In that writ petition, the petitioners bad challenged the order dated 10-6-1982, by which the services of the petitioners were earlier terminated. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24-7-1991, the writ petition was allowed. In that judgment the Court come to the finding that the appointment of the writ petitioners though temporary and ad hoc were regularised by agreement dated 24-9-1981. The Court also come to another conclusion that the petitioners have worked for 240 days and are entitled to the protection of Sec.25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. No appeal having been filed against, the same has become final Thereafter, the court observed in that judgment that the petitioners would be allowed to join their posts with such benefits of services as might be permissible to them, and if the respondents concerned were desirous to proceed further in retrenching or terminating the services of the petitioners, they should follow the procedure of law. 6. From this judgment it emerges that it is not open to the respondents either to retrench the petitioners or terminate their services except in accordance with law. Thereafter, it appears that under the threat of a contempt proceeding, the petitioner were allowed to join on 27 4-1992 and on the same day, notices were issued to the petitioners, a copy whereof is Annexure-7 to this writ petition, to show cause why there services should not be terminated as their appointment were not made in accordance with law. The show-cause notice does not give any other details. 7. At this stage to make the record straight, it is relevant to observe that in between the period of first termination order dated 10-6-1982, and the date of joining i. e.27-4-1992 in pursuance of the order of this Court inc. W. J. C. No.2460 of 1982, the petitioners were neither permitted to work nor paid any salary by the respondent nor was there interim order of the Court to that effect. 8. In pursuance of the show cause notice, Ann exure-7 to this writ petition, the petitioners also filed their reply and thereafter the impugned order has been passed against the petitioners, a copy whereof is Annexure-11 to this writ petition. 9. From the perusal of Annexure-11, it appears that the respondents came to the finding that neither there was any vacancy at the time of appointment of the petitioners in the year 1981 nor there was any sanction by the department. It is also held therein that no power was delegated by the Government in favour of the authority concerned to make the appointments of employees in class IV grade, including petitioner. It is also mentioned that the Superintending Engineer was only authorised to make the appointments and not the Executive Engineer. The impugned order also refers to a finding that prior to making appointment of petitioners, the posts were neither advertised inviting the applications nor the names were sent from the Employment Exchange. It is also mentioned that the policy of reservation was not followed and the Executive Engineer made the appointments of the petitioners in a hush-hush manner. From the the perusal of the above grounds, it is clear that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had obtained appointment by means of any fraud or misrepresentation. It is also mentioned that the policy of reservation was not followed and the Executive Engineer made the appointments of the petitioners in a hush-hush manner. From the the perusal of the above grounds, it is clear that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had obtained appointment by means of any fraud or misrepresentation. The mistakes, if any, in appointing petitioners in 1981, were committed by the respondents and as such mistakes were sought to be rectified by the impugned order in 1992. 10. The appointments were admittedly made in 1981 and from the judgment in C. W. J C. No.2460 of 1982, mentioned above, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners were also regularised by the agreement dated 24-9-1981. Thus, even if the appointment of the petitioners were initially wrong, after regularisation the question of validity of the appointment cannot be reopened after a lapse of about 12 years It will be relevant to point out that the agreement dated 24-9-1981 has not been disputed by the respondents either in the show-cause notice (Annexure-7)or in the impugned final order (Annexure-1 ). Even the impugned final order does not make any reference to the agreement dated 24.9.1981 regularising the services of the petitioners. In this context we also refer to paragraph 6 of the writ petition, which is extracted as under : "that the Bihar Provincial P. W. D. Workers, Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Union"), Araria Subdivisional Branch, had raised certain demands for appointment of wards/dependants of dead employees in 4th grade and as also of retired persons as also for appointment from the persons of muster roll and also for certain other categories. In view of above-mentioned demands the aforesaid appointments of the petitioners and others were made. Appointments of the petitioners and others though temporary and ad hoc were regularised rather confirmed by an agreement dated 24-9-1981 which was entered between the Executive Engineer and the Subdivisional Officers, P. W. D. Araria and Forhesganj and the Joint Secretary and other office bearers of the Union, copy of the said agreement is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-2. " 11. We have also perused the averments made in paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit in answer to the above quoted paragraph 6 of the writ petition. " 11. We have also perused the averments made in paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit in answer to the above quoted paragraph 6 of the writ petition. Paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit has not disputed, inter alia, either the factum that the agreement for regularisation was arrived at on 24-9-1981 or the validity of the said agreement or the order of regularisation of the petitioners in service The contention of paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit are set out herounder : "that in reply to paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is true that the appointments were made as per demand raised by P. W. D. Workers Union, Araria but during appointments the rules prescribed by the Government were not followed and as such all appointments were terminated by the then Executive engineer Road Division, Araria, Shri R. C. Prasad as per order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Road Circle, putnea. " 12. Thus, one fact is clear that the question of regularisation of the petitionersservices by agreement dated 24-9-1981 was not disputed before this Court when the judgment in C. W. J. C No 2460 of 1992 was rendered and the same has not been disputed either in the show cause notice (Acnexure-7) or in the final order (Annexure-11) nor has it been disputed in the counter affidavit of the respondents. 13. Thus, by the impugned final order, the initial appointment of the petitioners, prior to the admitted agreement dated 24-9-1981 is sought to be opened. Unless the factum of the consequential step of regularising the services of the petitioners were challenged, it is not possible for the respondents to go behind the said agreement and question the initial appointment of the petitioners after 12 years. For the sake of the argument, even if, it is accepted that the appointments of the petitioners were made illegally, irregularily or initially in 1981, that was a stage prior to the agreement dated 24-9-1981 regularising the services of the petitioners and therefore, also the question of validity of initial appointment cannot be gone into in the year 1992 without assailing the fact of regularisation of appointment by the agreement. It is necessary to point out that no appeal was preferred against the judgment of this Court dated 24-7-1991 as such that judgment has become final in between the parties and therefore, the finding recorded in that judgment that the agreement was arrived at on 24-7-1981 regularising the services of the petitioners, has also become final, we are certainly not sitting as an appellate Court for examining the judgment in c. W. J. C. No.2460 of 1981 nor we are reviewing the order and therefore, the order dated 24-7-1991 having become final, is binding on us 14. Learned counsel for the State has cited a judgment in Sitaram thakw V/s. the State of Bihar, reported in 1994 P L. J. R. Page 68. This judgment is clearly distinguishable as in the present case a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. 15. For the facts and circumstances narrated above, we quash the impugned order dated 30th September, 1992, Annexure-11 to the writ petition. We further direct that the petitioners be reinstated forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any payment of salary for the period they have not worked. 16. With the above direction/observation, this petition is allowed. Thejcost is made easy. 17. We, however, record our appreciation of the able assistance given to this Court by the learned State Counsel. Petition Allowed.