Judgment 1. Considering the fact that application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal has been allowed in the first appeal (LPA No. 419 of 2007) and the second appeal being also against the same judgment, we allowed the application for condonation of the delay in preferring the second appeal (L.P.A. No. 373 of 2007) also. 2. These two appeals are against a common judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 arising out of the two writ petitions registered as C.W.J.C. No. 338 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No. 565 of 2006 having similar facts and circumstances, and, accordingly, they have been heard together and are being dealt with by this common judgment and order. 3. We do not think that Patna Municipal Corporation, successor of the P.R.D.A. can be said to be aggrieved by the judgment and order appealed against, whereby an order of the State Government cancelling absorption by P.R.D.A. of the writ petitioners has been quashed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is, therefore, the decision of the State Government which has been annulled and accordingly, if anybody can be said to be aggrieved by the judgment and order appealed against is the State Government and not the Patna Municipal Corporation, successor of P.R.D.A. 4. The writ petitioners-respondents were appointed by the BISCOMAUN. They were deputed to P.R.D.A. P.R.D.A. decided to absorb the writ petitioners-respondents and a notification to that affect was issued on 21st Sept., 1998. Absorption of the writ petitioners-respondents in terms of said notification dated 21st September, 1998 was, however, subject to the approval of the State Government. State Government neither approved, nor disapproved. It, however appears that after the said notification was issued, an attempt was made to return the petitioners to the BISCOMAUN. BISCOMAUN informed the petitioners by a letter dated 6th January, 1999 that since their services have already been absorbed in P.R.D.A. there is no question of BISCOMAUN accepting them back. The said letter was sent to the State Government with a copy marked to the petitioners. Petitioners were then taken back by P.R.D.A. In this connection a notification dated 1st September, 1999 was issued by the State Government, which in no uncertain terms made it clear that the petitioners shall remain in P.R.D.A with therein status as was prevalent then. The said letter was sent to the State Government with a copy marked to the petitioners. Petitioners were then taken back by P.R.D.A. In this connection a notification dated 1st September, 1999 was issued by the State Government, which in no uncertain terms made it clear that the petitioners shall remain in P.R.D.A with therein status as was prevalent then. On 21st Feb., 2006 by the order impugned in the writ petitions, the State Government held out that the action of P.R.D.A. to absorb the petitioners is in gross violence of Section 6(3) of the Act by which P.R.D.A. was established. 5. In the case of Jamil Ahmad V/s. Industrial Development Commissioner & Others, reported in (2004)13 SCC 736 , it has been observed that once a person has been absorbed eight years back, he cannot be put back in a position in which he was prior to such absorption. This action of P.R.D.A. as contained in its notification dated 21st September, 1998 made BISCOMAUN to believe, as appears from its letter dated 6th January, 1991 written to the State Government that the petitioners have ceased to be employees of BISCOMAUN since their absorption in P.R.D.A. Knowing the said state of affairs, the State Government, by notification dated 1st September, 1999, directed restoration of the status of the petitioner in P.R.D.A. that was existing immediately after the notification of P.R.D.A. dated 21st September, 1998. As held by Hon ble Supreme Court after having allowed a person the status of an absorbed employee of an authority, neither the authority, nor any other person can be allowed to put back such a person in the status he was before acquiring such status eight years back. In principal, for those reasons the writ petition has been allowed. 6. The learned Single Judge, therefore, upheld the decision of P.R.D.A successor of the appellant to absorb the petitioners which was sought to be interfered by the State Government. In that circumstance, we do not know why P.R.D.A. should be aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal. 7. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.