JUDGMENT ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated May 2, 2002 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court holding, inter alia, that the writ petitioner/appellant cannot claim to be treated at par with the regular employees of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Institute') either as a permanent employee or a temporary employee. 2. THE material facts of this case are that the writ petitioner/appellant appointed an 'Agricultural Supervisor' in the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of West Bengal on April 5, 1966. Thereafter, on or about May 5, 1973 the writ petitioner/ appellant was appointed to the post of Agricultural Officer, Group 'A' (Central Services) in the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Sometime in the year 1979, the then Registrar of the said Institute informed the appellant that he was selected for appointment as a 'Junior Project Manager' (Fodder) for Jursey Bull Mother Farm Project in the Department of Agricultural Engineering in the said Institute and the appellant was, thereafter, offered an appointment for joining the said post by March 7, 1979. 3. CONSIDERING such offer of appointment, the appellant resigned from the Central Government service and he was released from the Ministry of Agriculture and, thereafter, joined the said post on May 28, 1979 and the appellant joined the said Institute on June 5, 1979. The said project, which was initially for a period of three (3) years continued much beyond the said period of three (3) years. Suddenly, the appellant was informed in the month of January, 1986 that as the said project has come to an end, the service of the appellant stood terminated. The said purported order of termination was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition was numbered as C.O. No. 55 (W) of 1987 and, ultimately, the said writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on May 28, 1988. Against the said Judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal and the said appeal, being P.M.A. No. 882 of 1989. That appeal was heard and allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on May 17, 1994. 4. Against the said Judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal and the said appeal, being P.M.A. No. 882 of 1989. That appeal was heard and allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on May 17, 1994. 4. IN the said judgment, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, after considering and recording the facts of the case, came to the following conclusions: i) The appellant had a reasonable and legitimate expectation that the Jursey Bull Mother Farm Project has become a permanent Unit of the said Institute and the appellant is a regular employee of the said Institute. ii) The said Institute has not given any consideration to the appellant's reasonable expectation and the purported decision of the Institute to close down the said project throwing the employees overboard affects right to livelihood of the employees. Such a decision is arbitrary and whimsical. iii) All other persons were absorbed and regularised in their regular service. As there was no equivalent post in the case of the appellant, he was not considered for regularisation. The learned Judges also considered various decisions and came to the conclusion that the judgment of the learned single Judge is to be set aside and the appellant must be offered alternative appointment in similar vacancy and to any other project or in the department carrying similar scale of pay. The learned Judges further directed that such appointment shall be given prospectively from the date of judgment, but the benefit of continuity of service with back wages shall be given to the appellant. The learned Judges also gave the appellant the opportunity of last pay drawn as if he was all along in service. 5. IT is not in dispute that an attempt was made by the said Institute to review the said judgment, but such attempt failed. 6. NOW, after the said judgment was delivered, the appellant was again offered an employment and appointed to the post of 'Junior Project Officer' on July 18, 1994. The appellant had accepted the said employment as he had no other option. Ultimately, the appellant reached the age of superannuation and retired from his service with effect from August 31, 1997. 6. NOW, after the said judgment was delivered, the appellant was again offered an employment and appointed to the post of 'Junior Project Officer' on July 18, 1994. The appellant had accepted the said employment as he had no other option. Ultimately, the appellant reached the age of superannuation and retired from his service with effect from August 31, 1997. Now, the question, which was canvassed in this Court, is whether or not the retiral benefits of the appellant will be computed on the basis that he was not a regular employee of the said Institute on and from August 31, 1997. 7. IT has also been noted that the learned Judges of the Division Bench in the judgment held that the appellant's legitimate expectation for regularisation of his employment was a reasonable one and the action of the said Institute in (sic) not acting pursuant to such expectation is arbitrary. 8. THIS finding given by the learned Judges of the Division Bench is binding between the parties. Such a finding may not have the effect of a binding precedent to be followed in each and every case of other employees, who are similarly situated. But, one thing is certain that the aforesaid finding has a binding effect inter parties and the same binds the said Institute. While dealing with the case of the appellant, the Division Bench has also granted the appellant continuity of service and the protection of last pay drawn as if he was always in service. These directions given by the Division Bench taken together clothe the appellant with attribute of regular employee. On the one hand, the Division Bench held that the appellant's expectation of regularisation of his service is reasonable and the action of the said Institute in not regularising the service of the appellant is arbitrary. The Division Bench further granted the benefit of continuity of service and the benefit of pay protection. So taking an overall view of the cumulative effect of the benefits granted to the appellant, this Court is inclined to hold that the said Institute cannot deny the benefit of regular employment to the appellant since the judgment of the Division Bench binds the said Institute vis-a-vis the appellant. 9. THIS peculiar fact situation of this case was possibly not properly appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Judge of the first Court. 9. THIS peculiar fact situation of this case was possibly not properly appreciated in its true perspective by the learned Judge of the first Court. However, considering the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be treated as a regular employee of the said Institute. In coming to this finding, this Court is very much guided by the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above and for the reasons indicated above, this Court, however, passed an order dated April 6, 2004 by which the learned counsel for the said Institute was directed to come with a calculation of the amount, which the appellant is entitled to receive by way of pension and other retirement benefits on the basis of the last salary drawn by the appellant. 10. PURSUANT to the aforesaid direction, the learned counsel for the said Institute took instruction and filed an affidavit, which was affirmed by one Sri Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Assistant Registrar of the said Institute, on April 26, 2004. From the particulars given in the said affidavit, it appears that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,05,010/- by way of arrears of pension and he was also entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,483/- by way of monthly pension. It also appears that the appellant is also entitled to amount of Rs. 98,145/- by way of gratuity. The learned counsel for the appellant was also given a copy of the affidavit and the particulars in the said affidavit were shown also to (sic) the appellant, who was present before the Court in course of hearing. The appellant has also accepted the said calculation as fairly accurate. In that view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the learned Judge of the first Court dated May 2, 2002 is quashed. This Courts directs the said Institute to give the aforesaid retiral benefits indicated as above to the appellant from the month of May 2004 onwards. The arrears of pension as shown in the chart be made available to the appellant within a period of three (3) months from today. Both these payments are subject to the earlier payment of C.P.F and the other benefits, if any. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.