Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 1278 of 2007 and I.A. No. 1276 of 2007 have respectively been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 3381 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No. 3565 of 2006 with a prayer that since Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred to as the PRDA) stands dissolved by a legislation and all powers, responsibilities as well as service of persons working under PRDA has been vested in Patna Municipal Corporation, therefore, Patna Municipal Corporation ought to be added as party-respondent in both the writ applications. 3. The prayer is allowed. 4. In both the writ applications the questions are common so are the facts and, they are being taken up together for disposal. Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 3565 of 2006, Abhinash Kumar Singh, came to be appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer in BISCOMAUN on 20.2.1984. The petitioner of CWJC No. 3381 of 2006, Lalan Prasad Singh, too was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in BISCOMAUN on 12.6.1987. The rest of the events are more or less similar, if not identical, therefore, the issue can be dealt with together. Somewhere along down the line after appointment of these petitioners, the State of Bihar to unburden some of the Corporations and Institutions of their excess or unutilised skilled manpower decided to send these Engineers and many others on deputation to various departments or organisations where their services could be effectively utilised. With this it may be also taken note of that most of these organisations were not in very sound financial health which may have also spurred the Government. The exercise was to unburden them of their financial liabilities. This action or object of the State Government could not really be questioned as it fell within their domain of policy making. 5. On 8.7.1994 the two petitioners in the present writ applications were picked up from BISCOMAUN for deputation to PRDA, a statutory body created under Act. 40 of 1982 of the State. This fact is borne out by a perusal of Annexure-6, which has been brought on record by the petitioner, Abhinash Kumar Singh. This deputation was made under the orders of the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. 40 of 1982 of the State. This fact is borne out by a perusal of Annexure-6, which has been brought on record by the petitioner, Abhinash Kumar Singh. This deputation was made under the orders of the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. After the above notification contained in Annexure-6, both the petitioners joined PRDA and the above fact stands corroborated by an office order dated 8.8.1994 issued by the PRDA, which is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. 6. The petitioners thereafter shouldered their responsibilities and looking at their performance as well as utility the respondent, PRDA initiated a proposal that they ought to be absorbed in the organisation. In this regard steps were initiated and decision was taken at the level of the PRDA. The matter was placed before the complete Board which was at the relevant time headed by the Minister of Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. It is relevant to take note of the decision which has been taken in the meeting dated 10.9.1998 by the Board. Besides other issues which were there in the agenda before the Board by agenda No. 45/98, it was decided that both the petitioners, namely, Abhinash Kumar Singh and Lalan Prasad Singh, who were on deputation with the PRDA ought to be absorbed in the services of PRDA itself. It was opined that the opinion of the Advocate General of Bihar, should also be taken in this regard. 7. The matter travelled to the Advocate General and he had occasion to record his opinion, which is contained in Annexure-13 and is dated 17.9.1998. The learned Advocate General in his communication to the Minister/Chairman of the PRDA took note of the background under which the two petitioners were put on deputation and now there was no legal impediment in their absorption in PRDA. The categorical opinion of the Advocate General recorded by him has relevance and needs to be reproduced: " Their absorption will not amount to fresh recruitment rather it will come within the category of appointment by transfer which is not restricted by proviso to sub-section (3) of Sec. 6 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Sri Lallan Prasad Singh and Sri Avinash Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer Working on deputation can be absorbed in the services of the Patna Regional Development Authority." 8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Sri Lallan Prasad Singh and Sri Avinash Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer Working on deputation can be absorbed in the services of the Patna Regional Development Authority." 8. Based on the opinion of the Advocate General, a notification dated 21.9.1998 contained in Annexure-15 came to be issued by the PRDA. This notification states that the services of the two petitioners stood absorbed in the organisation and though there was no occasion nor was there any legal requirement under law or Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the authorities of PRDA in their wisdom communicated the above factual position and their decision to the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar vide their letter dated 26.9.1998. It is not in dispute that thereafter the petitioners continued to work for a while, however, at one stage their services was sought to be returned to their original employer i.e. BISCOMAUN. When the petitioners returned to BISCOMAUN, BISCOMAUN vide its letter dated 6.1.1999 informed the petitioners that since their services have already been absorbed in PRDA there is no occasion as to why they should be accepted back in BISCOMAUN. It was recorded that they have ceased to be employees of BISCOMAUN. This fact emerges from the letter dated 6.1.1999, which is contained in Annexure-20 to the writ application. The matter also travelled to the State Government and the sum essence of this entire exercise was that the petitioners were brought back again and allowed to continue and work in PRDA. The reason for this action of PRDA to send the two petitioners to BISCOMAUN, after absorption is not clear nor available from the records. The issue, however, came to rest vide a notification dated 1.9.1999 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar. This notification contained in Annexure-22 states that the two petitioners were/would continue to be in PRDA as their employees. 9. After 1999 the petitioners worked in the PRDA continuously without any let or hindrance but it seems that some persons sitting in the secretariat had other ideas. 10. This notification contained in Annexure-22 states that the two petitioners were/would continue to be in PRDA as their employees. 9. After 1999 the petitioners worked in the PRDA continuously without any let or hindrance but it seems that some persons sitting in the secretariat had other ideas. 10. Since Sec. 6(3) of Bihar Regional Authority Act, 1981 has a vital bearing in this case the same is reproduced below to understand the true import of the Section: Section 6(3).The Secretary, and other officers and employees of the Authority shall be entitled to receive from the funds of the Authority such salaries and such allowances, if any, and shall be governed by such conditions of service as may be determined by regulations: Provided that appointments to posts with minimum salary of Rs. 500 shall be made on the advice of the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Authority may appoint a person on any post carrying salary above Rs. 500 after approval of the State Government and the total period of such appointment shall in no case exceed six months. 11. On 21.2.2006, a notification at the level of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar came to be issued (Annexure-25 in C.W.J.C. No. 3381 of 2006 and Annexure-27 in C.W.J.C. No. 3381 of 2006). This notification states that in terms of Sec. 6(3) of the Act the Authority did not have the requisite powers to make any appointments of any employee getting more than Rs. 500 as salary. Taking recourse to this statute the notification states that since PRDA did not have the requisite authority to make any appointments of people drawing salary of Rs. 500 or above without the approval of the State Government or the Bihar Public Service Commission, any appointment made in contravention would be illegal. It also states that the approval of the State Government was a must for these appointments. The notification further elaborates that these two petitioners, who were sent on deputation initially from BISCOMAUN and absorbed by PRDA was without the approval (emphasis mine) of the State Government. The notification further indicates that the two petitioners could never be absorbed in the PRDA as the action of absorbing these two petitioners was in clear violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act. The notification further indicates that the two petitioners could never be absorbed in the PRDA as the action of absorbing these two petitioners was in clear violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act. The notification thereafter talks of an order dated 14.10.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990, which is the famous case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee and another order dated 6.5.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5862 of 2005, giving the above elaborate reasonings, the Deputy Secretary issued a direction that the absorption of the two petitioners in PRDA stand terminated. 12. I must record my observation on the reference which has been given by the Deputy Secretary to the two orders of the High Court in two different writ applications. These two writ applications have no correlation with the issue of absorption of the petitioners in PRDA. Arun Kumar Mukherjee matter is going on since the year 1990 and all kinds of observations and directions have came to be recorded and it has been noticed by this Court on many occasions that the various directions and orders recorded in Arun Kumar Mukherjee case has been wrongly interpreted by various authorities to serve their interest and not to subserve the directions of the Court in the background in which it came to be passed. In so far as the second writ application is concerned that was a case where the boundary wall of a practising Advocate of this court was demolished and it was found that the illegal action was taken by some people of PRDA in connivance of some builders. The Court had to intervene and direct restoration of the boundary wall to its original position. In my opinion reference of these two cases have been intentionally made in the order so that an impression may be created that the impugned order dated 21.2.2006 was due to a judicial intervention and thereby preventing the authorities from applying any further mind to the issue. Nothing more need to be said with regard to that aspect of the matter. 13. As for the basic objection, which has been raised by the Deputy Secretary in order dated 21.2.2006 that the action of the PRDA to absorb the petitioners is in gross violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act is in my opinion totally misplaced. Nothing more need to be said with regard to that aspect of the matter. 13. As for the basic objection, which has been raised by the Deputy Secretary in order dated 21.2.2006 that the action of the PRDA to absorb the petitioners is in gross violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act is in my opinion totally misplaced. I would like to refer back to the quotation I have already recorded above, which is the opinion of the Advocate General in this regard. 14. The Advocate General had categorically recorded that Sec. 6(3) of the Act does not come into play in the present case. It comes into play only when Patna Regional Development Authority exercises its powers in making appointment under it for the first time. Since it is an appointment by transfer/absorption and that too in the background that the State Government had taken a conscious decision in this regard, many years ago, it is not understood as to how these appointments or absorption of the petitioners can be said to be in violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act. It is not a case that fresh appointment of the petitioners were made by PRDA. The decision to absorb them and make them regular employees of PRDA was taken after many consultations and deliberations made in this regard at various levels in the State Government. In so far as the approval of State Government is concerned, if this is not approval at the level of the State Government then this Court fails to understand as to what is approval or what other approval would be required. 15. On behalf of the State Government learned Standing Counsel 14 appears and tries to justify the decision taken by the Government, which are the impugned orders at Annexures-25 and 27 to the two writ applications. His submissions are based on the decision of the State Government reflected in the impugned order where he has tried to justify the same on similar grounds that the decision of absorbing the services of the two petitioners is in violation of Sec. 6(3) of the Act. There is no other submission in this regard. 16. This submission deserves to be negated and rejected outright. There is no other submission in this regard. 16. This submission deserves to be negated and rejected outright. This is so because this Court has already taken note of the legal provision and opined that the same only applies to a case where a fresh appointment is made by the PRDA. Since the petitioners were absorbed on transfer in PRDA after due deliberations at various levels in the State Government including obtaining opinion of the Advocate General it is not a case of new or fresh appointment. Further there was approval and affirmation of the action by the State of the action taken by PRDA. The, decision of the PRDA cannot be said to be a decision made at their own level alone but a decision thrust upon them by the State Government. In these two backgrounds, the question is, whether it is open to the State Government to plead and submit before this Court that the absorption of these two petitioners in PRDA was in violation of a statute and the legal provisions? The obvious answer is a no. 17. Learned counsel, before parting, brought to my notice a decision rendered in the case of Jamil Ahmed vs. Industrial Development Commr. & Principal Secy., (2004)13 SCC 736 . In my opinion the judgment has bearing on the present case. A similar situation had arisen in which after due consent and concurrence of the original employer the petitioners were sent on deputation and absorbed subsequently. Their services was sought to be returned, which came up in challenge before the Allahabad High Court. When the petitioner did not get relief, the Supreme Court examined the matter and held as under in paragraph 9: 9. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we need not go in depth into the question sought to be urged on behalf of the Authority, for, we are of the view that the appellant having resigned from the Railways and having been absorbed in the Authority eight years back, cannot be put in a position, for no fault of his, which results in his being an employee neither of the Authority nor of the parent department. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assuming there is any such discrepancy which is now pleaded as a reason by the Authority. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for the discrepancy, if any, assuming there is any such discrepancy which is now pleaded as a reason by the Authority. It is not the case of the respondents in the order dated 6.6.2002 that the appellant sought to enter the Authority from back door. Therefore, the question of cases if any, where backdoor entry into the service of the Authority may have been obtained, is of no consequence insofar as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned. Both the reasons stated in the order dated 6.6.2002, are therefore, untenable. 18. Learned counsel for the BISCOMAUN too has appeared and filed his counter affidavit. They have categorically asserted in the counter affidavit that in so far as these two petitioners are concerned the master and servant relationship came to an end years ago. They are no longer employee of BISCOMAUN. The question of their being taken back into BISCOMAUN because of the decision contained in Annexures-25 and 27 of the writ applications does not arise. They reassert that the master and servant relationship stood severed years ago and they were struck-off the strength of BISCOMAUN in 1999. It is not understood as to why now at such a belated stage these two petitioners are sought to be dumped on them as their employees. 19. If the entire gamut of discussions is gone through the situation does become ironical for these two petitioners. At the fag end of their career the decision of the State Government has left them nowhere. The so-called original employer BISCOMAUN refuses to recognise them and the State Government has held their absorption in PRDA illegal. Now even PRDA has been abolished by an ordinance promulgated by the State Government and the body has been merged in the Patna Municipal Corporation. It was in this background that the Patna Municipal Corporation has been added as a respondent on the basis of an interlocutory application filed in the present case. 20. If the contention of the State Government is accepted and the stand which has been taken by BISCOMAUN is correct then the two petitioners have been left in a blind allay. There is no road ahead for them. After 22 years of service the petitioners do not know who their master is. 20. If the contention of the State Government is accepted and the stand which has been taken by BISCOMAUN is correct then the two petitioners have been left in a blind allay. There is no road ahead for them. After 22 years of service the petitioners do not know who their master is. This is a very very anomalous situation, which has been created by the State Government because someone somewhere sitting in an ivory tower is not willing to apply his mind either to the facts or to the law in question. 21. In totality of the facts and circumstances, which have been discussed above, this Court has no option but to quash notification of the State Government and PRDA contained in Annexure-23 Series repatriating the petitioners to BISCOMAUN. Further the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar contained in Annexures-25 and 27 of the two writ applications are quashed too. 22. The petitioners would be treated to be employees of PRDA now merged in Patna Municipal Corporation. They would be governed by service conditions of the Patna Municipal Corporation now and treated as their permanent employees. 23. These writ applications are accordingly allowed for the reasons indicated in this order above.