Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the petitioner appellant Rajendra Mehtar against the order of 12 September 2002 on CWJC. No. 12122 of 2000; Rajendra Mehtar V/s. The State of Bihar and others. The petitioner appellant Rajendra Mehtar is the son of Smt. Sanichari Devi. She died in 1996. She worked as a Sweeperess in the Block Office, Dhamdaha, District Purnea. She was initially employed as a daily wager in 1978. She was put on a scale pay in 1981 and continued to draw this scale pay until 1996. When notice was issued on the writ petition, the counter affidavit did not reply to the petition paragraph by paragraph. The counter affidavit conveniently evaded the submissions made in the writ petition. For instance, in paragraph 5 the petitioner stated that his mother received salary from the regular establishment till her death. This submission was not challenged nor contradicted. Sanichari Devi died leaving behind the petitionerand two minor daughters along with a minor son as heirs. The father of these children had pre-deceased the mother, tn the circumstances, these children laid a claim seeking death-cum-retirement benefits. 2. Avoiding the reply to the petition after her death argumentative submissions were made in the counter affidavit to the effect that there is a legal requirement that appointment has to be made by the competent authority; the mother of the petitioner appellation was "never formally appointed"; "her so-called appointment was not legal and proper"; "as contingent menial she could never have been legally appointed by the Block Development Officer". In the same breath, it is also acknowledged that a Block Devolopment Officer, Dhamdaha as well as a, Sub-divisional Officer, Dhamdaha had requested the District Development Officer and Nazarat Deputy Collector to regularise "the said unauthorised appointment post facto." 3. The counter affidavit which answers the petition is a bundle of contradictions. After the petitioner appellants mother died, the State respondents were generating records and attempting to pass a resolution by the establishment committee that the petitioners mothers appointment was "ab initio illegal". The counter affidavit which answers the petition is a bundle of contradictions. After the petitioner appellants mother died, the State respondents were generating records and attempting to pass a resolution by the establishment committee that the petitioners mothers appointment was "ab initio illegal". It is further submitted in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit that "the claim of the petitioner appellant for payment of legal dues and other benefits on account of death of his mother while in service is misconstrued, illegal and without any justification; wrong and illegal appointment does not entitle anybody to claim legal benefits which could only be admissible in case appointment is made by a competent authority following the established procedure therefore. As if truer words were never spoken. But, in this case neither facts have been given nor pleaded in the counter affidavit. Subsequently in a supplementary counter affidavit in the letters patent appeal, the Court is being told that since the appointment was illegal, an action is being taken against those who made it. Sanichari Devi, the Class IV Sweeper is dead. 4. Fighting with petty personal, who cannot defend herself after death, with a defence as has been taken by the State respondents is reprehensible and inequitable. It shows that there is a slip between the cup and the lip. On record there is a document in the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the letters patent appeal itself dated 21 June 1982 signed by District Development Officer, Purnea recommending that the temporary posts the made permanent in reference to certain Class IV employees. The communication is a generality and is not targeted as a favour for any pareticular person. This communication is in reference to a clarification sought by the Block Development Officer, Raniganj by his communication dated 22 September 1981. This alone gives rise a presumption that of the appointments which had been made temporarily a sanction was being sought for regularisation. 5. It appears that within the district some body has made this case into a prestige issue against the ghost of an employee who is not there to defend herself to justify her death-cum-post retirement benefits whatever they might be. 6. The counter affidavit which was filed in the writ petition did not reply to the petition and the submissions apparently were made on the basis of information derived from the record. 6. The counter affidavit which was filed in the writ petition did not reply to the petition and the submissions apparently were made on the basis of information derived from the record. When the Court sought the record during the proceedings in the letters patent appeal a submission was made that the records are missing. 7. If the contention or the defence of the State respondents is that the appointment of the sweepress Smt. Sanichari Devi was irregular and illegal and action is being taken against the officer, two made the appointment, then the Court has one answer The State respondents may take their action to its logical conclusion and if the defence to deny the death cum post retirement benefits to a deceased employee has come to such a pass to take an inequitable stand which is inconsistent with the record, then those who indeed made the appointments should be dismissed straightway, whether these officials were a Block Development Officer or a Collector. 8. The defence taken by the State respondents either in the petition or the letters patent appeal is one which is against the record and the Court certifies it so. The order on the petition is set aside. The communication of 1982 clearly establishes that appointments were made temporarily and for this sanction was sought to regularise the appointments. Now it is entirely up to the State respondents to pay or not to pay. But as soon as they take the stand that the appointments made were illegal, as the Court has already observed at the expense of repetition, let action be taken for dismissal of those who are responsible for such appointments. The Court has made these observations and noticed the details for the reason that any citizen and specially weaker sections are entitled to as much protection of law that any other State officer, who claims his post retirement benefits. The patna High Court is facing an slaught of litigations of post retirement benefits of employees, who are seeking pension and post retirement benefits. During the tenure of the service of the employees not a whisper is made that appointments are illegal. But, when they claim post retirement benefits, bureaucracy within the bureaucracy jumps with a defence that the appointments were illegal. If that is so then first dismiss those who made them. 9. The petition is allowed with costs at Rs. During the tenure of the service of the employees not a whisper is made that appointments are illegal. But, when they claim post retirement benefits, bureaucracy within the bureaucracy jumps with a defence that the appointments were illegal. If that is so then first dismiss those who made them. 9. The petition is allowed with costs at Rs. 1000.00 to be deposited in the Bihar State Legal Services Authority.