Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 26th August, 1992, by which the Directory, Treasury, has allegedly decided not to take work from the petitioner. As a sequel to the said order, another order dated 16th of december, 1992, as contained in annexure-4 has been passed refusing to accept the work of the petitioner. The facts of the case are as follows: it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the district Magistrate, Patna, as a candidate peon on daily-rated basis. After such appointment the petitioner was deputed to work in the Patna secretariat Treasury. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner had worked in the said treasury since 18th June, 1980, Incidentally there was bifurcation of Collectorate and the treasury in the year, 1982. With such bifurcation the petitioner has no concern. The petitioner continued to work in the Patna Secretariat Treasury but his salary for the months of April, 1990 till 24th May, 1990 was withheld. Ultimately, the said salary was paid by the office of the Patna Secretariat treasury. This has been stated in paragraph-20 of the writ-petition and his fact has not been denied by the respondents. 2. The petitioner has been working without any break till 16th december, 1992 and thereafter an order of termination has been passed, inter alia, on the ground that since the petitioner has not been appointed by the Directorate of treasury, the directorate disowned the petitioner and refused to take any work from him or to pay him. 3. When the matter was heard on the previous occasion, this Court, by an order dated 30th August, 1995, directed the learned counsel for the respondents to take instruction from the District Magistrate, Patna, whether the petitioner can be appointed by him on any one of the posts in respect of which the petitioner was working. Pursuant to the same order, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by one Gopal Chand Modi, deputy Collector, Nazarat and he has stated in the said affidavit that the petitioner does not belong to any category of posts available in Patna collectorate and hence his appointment to any post in the Patna collectorate is not possible. 4. Having regard to the facts of this case, this Court finds that gross injustice has been meted out to the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the facts of this case, this Court finds that gross injustice has been meted out to the petitioner. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner worked on the aforesaid post for the last twelve years, without any complaint from any quarter, his services cannot be unceremoniously terminated on the alleged ground that the petitioner was not initially appointed by the Directorate of treasury. 5. It was not for the petitioner to know at the time of his appointment in 1980 that subsequently there will be bifurcation between the Directorate of the treasury and the Collectorate of patna. In any event the petitioner is in no way responsible by such bifurcation. The said bifurcation has taken place for the purpose of administrative convenience between two organisations. Since the petitioner all along worked in the Treasury, Patna, there is no reason for the authorities of the said Treasury to disown him and refuse to take any work from him. Such action of the concerned respondent amounts to unjustified termination of the services of the petitioner. The aforesaid action of the respondents is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. No reason has been assigned as to why the respondent-authorities did not take any work from the petitioner. 6. There is no whisper in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that any enquiry or complaint is pending against the petitioner. 7. In the background of this case, the action of the respondents contained issuing in annexures-1 and 4 is unreasonable, arbitrary and grossly unjustified. The petitioner has worked on the post for the last twelve years and to-day he has become over age for any kind of employment. Therefore, the uninterrupted service of twelve years of the petitioner cannot be put an end to by the governmental authorities so casually. It is expected that as government officers they should act fairly and with a due sense of responsibility and it goes without saying that the respondents have failed to act either fairly or responsibly. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders as contained in annexures 1 and 4 are quashed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take the petitioner back on the post on which he was working and also regularise him in the said post within a period of three months from the. date of reinstatement. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders as contained in annexures 1 and 4 are quashed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take the petitioner back on the post on which he was working and also regularise him in the said post within a period of three months from the. date of reinstatement. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner need not be given back wage for the period for which he did not work. The reinstatement of the petitioner will take place within a period of a fortnight from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Annexures 1 and 4 are quashed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed