ORDER 1. The writ petition, CWJC No. 3427/1998 (R), having allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 26th October, 1999 and the petitioners having reinstated, the appellant-Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (HEC for short) has preferred this appeal. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant-HEC. is required to follow the provisions of the Factories Act and the Bihar Factories Rules. For their Factory the HEC is to appoint Safety Officers as per Sub-rule (3) of Rule 62 (B) of the Bihar Factory Rules, as quoted hereunder:-- "Conditions of service. (a)--where the number of Safety Officers, to be appointed in a Factory exceeds one, one of them shall be designated as the Chief Safety Officer and shall have a status higher than that of the others. The Chief Safety Officer shall be in overall charges of the Safety functions as envisaged in Sub-rule (4), the other Safety Officer working under his control. (b) The Chief Safety Officer shall be given the status of Departmental Head and shall work directly under the control of the Chief Executive of the Factory. All other Safety Officers shall be given appropriate status to enable them to discharge their functions effectively. (c) The scale of pay and the allowance to be granted to the Safety Officers including the Chief Safety Officer and the other conditions at their service shall be the same as these of the other officers of corresponding status in the Factory. (d) In the case of dismissal or discharge, a Safety Officer shall have a right to appeal to the Chief Inspector. 3. As no action was taken to fill up the post of Safety Officers in number of Factories within the State of Bihar (including the present State of Jharkhand) gave rise of filing a writ petition CWJC No. 6173/ 1992, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 18th March, 1993 with direction to the Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour and Employment, Government of Bihar and the Chief Inspector of Factories to take such step so that all the vacancies of Safety Officer (S) in respective Factories are filled up as per Government Notification No. 2/F1- 1027/88/L and E-148 dated 13th February, 1989 within six months. 4. Thereafter different organizations including HEC, took step to fill up the post of Safety Officer (s) for their respective Factories. 4. Thereafter different organizations including HEC, took step to fill up the post of Safety Officer (s) for their respective Factories. After advertisement, Interview, selection and recommendation of the Selection Committee, the petitioners were appointed as Safety Officers on 29th December, 1993. Though the procedure for regular appointment was followed but in the order it was shown an ad hoc arrangement for six months and was extended? from time to time. The last extension was given by HEC, vide letter dated 15th January, 1997. 5. In the aforesaid background, the learned single Judge held the order of termination as illegal, petitioners having appointed following all the procedure like a regular employee and as the HEC, is bound to have Safety Officers for its Factories. 6. We find no reason to differ with the finding of the learned single Judge. If the appointment is made after following all the procedures of regular appointment, the HEC, cannot deprive the appointees-petitioners by showing the nature as ad hoc appointment and as it is bound to have Safety Officers for its factories they cannot terminate the service on the ground that the appointment was ad hoc. 7. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.