ORDER 1. This matter is actually a hang over of the illegalities committed by the State of Bihar. The petitioner-appellant Parshuram Prasad was initially employed in the Consolidation department i.e. for carrying out the function and the work under the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Unfortunately the State Government abolished Chakbandi though it is constitutional obligation. Twice the matter was decided by the High Court. Twice the appeal of the State was rejected by the Supreme Court and yet it was not amenable to put to the law under the Act aforesaid. Who advises the State government to litigate even after the issues are terminal? This is violating the Constitution. 2. Recently the court has been indicated, which learned counsel for the appellant also submits, that consolidation operation will now resume again. In that case, it is contended, the petitioner-appellant ought to have his right to repatriate to his parent department as on this there is no issue between him and the State-respondents. What is contended is reasonable. 3. Thus without interfering with the order on the petition there is an extention beyond the order on the writ petition that the petitioner-appellant will have his right to apply and seek repatriation to his parent department i.e., the department which will be carrying out the consolidation of holding operations. 4. The appeal succeeds.