JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) Shivaji Pandey, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 583 dated 30th July 1998 passed by the Chief Engineer (North) Tube-well Division, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder he affirmed the earlier order of reversion passed by the Chief Engineer, North Bihar, Water Development Corporation, Muzaffarpur. 3. In this case, the primal issue that has been raised is that the petitioners were working in work-charge establishment as Class-IV employee but by the order of the Superintending Engineer, these petitioners have been absorbed and promoted to Class-III post on different dates and later on the Chief Engineer found the promotion as illegal and they were reverted to the original post which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. It appears from the record of the writ petition that petitioner no.1 was initially appointed as work charge helper by the Sub-divisional Officer, Tube-well Sub-division, Gopalganj, vide Memo No. 634 dated 27th July 1973, whereas petitioner no.2 was initially appointed as regular helper by the Sub-divisional Officer, Tube-well Sub-division, Bettiah vide Memo No. 90 dated 31st January 1970 and his appointment was subsequently regularized in 1980. Petitioner no.3 was initially appointed as work charge helper by the Sub-divisional Officer, Tube-well Sub-division, Gopalganj vide letter no. 634 dated 27th July 1973 and petitioner no.4 was initially appointed as Tube-well meth by the Sub-divisional Officer, Tube-well Sub-division, Siwan vide letter no.179 dated 1st September 1960 which was subsequently regularized and petitioner no.5 was appointed on the post of Khalasi in the year 1971 5. Later on the petitioners were promoted to different posts of Class-III vide letter dated 14th October 1980 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) In the year 1982, the then Chief Engineer, North could know the fact that one Sri B.N. Rajak, the then Superintending Engineer had promoted Bihari Baitha to Class-III post and vide letter dated 30-th November 1982, the appointment of Sri Bihari Baitha was cancelled with retrospective effect from the date of issuance of promotion. In the latter part of the letter, it has been mentioned that all the persons similarly situated have been appointed by Sri B.N.Rajak, will meet the same fate as of Sri Bihari Baitha (as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition). In the latter part of the letter, it has been mentioned that all the persons similarly situated have been appointed by Sri B.N.Rajak, will meet the same fate as of Sri Bihari Baitha (as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition). When these petitioners could know about Annexure-4, they filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 310 of 1983 and this Court has refused to pass any order in favour of petitioners as it was of general nature and no way affecting these petitioners. While disposing of the writ petition, this court directed to investigate the matter and only then pass any order and observed as under: “This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Before we part with this order, we must observe that we are not able to appreciate as to why so many promotions had been given by Sri B.N.Rajak, the then Superintending Engineer, Chapra which are being questioned now by the Corporation itself. It is only just and proper that the Corporation should investigate into this matter in detail and should first take necessary action against Sri Rajak, if it is found that he has granted illegal and irregular promotions to different persons which unnecessarily has caused harassment to the persons concerned as well as to the Corporation.” 6. The Chief Engineer, North vide different letters has issued show cause to these petitioners stating that their promotions were illegal and why same be not cancelled. On receipt of show cause, petitioners filed their explanation vide Annexure-7 series by which they have stated that their promotion was as per rules and regulations and have also given instances about the promotion given by different authorities and requested that their promotion may not be interfered. The Chief Engineer, North vide different Memo Numbers dated 12th January 1984 (Annexure 8 series) after consideration of their representations, issued order whereby the prayer of these petitioners was cancelled and they were reverted back to their original post. 7. Against that order, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1760 of 1989 and this Court vide order dated 5th December 1997 directed the respondents to consider their cases for promotion from due date as this order was passed in absence of counter affidavit. In view of the direction of this Court and on consideration of different letters. Against that order, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1760 of 1989 and this Court vide order dated 5th December 1997 directed the respondents to consider their cases for promotion from due date as this order was passed in absence of counter affidavit. In view of the direction of this Court and on consideration of different letters. The Chief Engineer vide letter dated 30th July 1998 affirmed the earlier order and thereby approved the order of reversion of the petitioners. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the persons working in the work charge establishment can be absorbed in grade to grade posts and has also stated that the persons who were absorbed in regular establishment cannot be promoted to higher post on any ground, although they can be give time bond promotion as per the rules and regulations. He has considered the case of individual persons and refused to interfere with the order of reversions. Being aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were earlier regularized in service and they were promoted by Sri B.N. Rajak, the then Superintending Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no illegality in the promotion of the petitioners and the order of reversion and approval letters are arbitrary and not sustainable in law. 9. Learned counsel for the State has refuted the argument and submitted that these petitioners were earlier in work charge establishment and later on they were brought in regular establishment and, as such, their promotion without following the rules and regulations is illegal and not sustainable in law. He has further submitted that petitioner cannot be promoted to Class-III post as they were in work charge establishment as Class-IV employee. He has relied on 2007(4) PLJR 259 Durganand Jha v. State of Bihar. He has drawn attention of this Court to the issues framed by the Full Bench and issue No.1 are as follows: “(i) as to whether the employees working in Work Charged Establishment and promoted to Class III posts, their continuance in regular establishment would be violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”. 10. He has drawn attention of this Court to the issues framed by the Full Bench and issue No.1 are as follows: “(i) as to whether the employees working in Work Charged Establishment and promoted to Class III posts, their continuance in regular establishment would be violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”. 10. Relying on this judgment, it was submitted that the fact and issue involved in this case is completely covered in the issue already considered by the Full Bench. 11. In this case admittedly the petitioners were in work charge establishment and it appears that in 1982 they were promoted to Class-III post by Sri B.N. Rajak which has been found to be illegal. Not only the petitioners were reverted but other persons who were granted promotion by Mr. Rajak were reverted back to the original post. The Petitioners have challenged the order which has been remanded back by this Court for reconsideration and the Chief Engineer, after full consideration of the fact and the fact involved with regard to the promotion of these petitioners did not find favour with the petitioners. This Court has held that an employee in work charge establishment has a separate entity and status than that of the regular establishment, the work charge establishment is created for temporary purpose to complete the particular work, for which the establishment has been made. A person engaged to discharge the duty of work charge establishment will cease to be an employee no sooner the work of that establishment would come to an end. 12. The Court has considered different judgments of this Court and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that any appointment or promotion dehors the rules and regulations are violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and their promotion/regularization on Class-III post by the State authorities is void and thereafter all the issues were decided in favour of the State and against the employee. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this judgment is per incurium because the Full Bench should have decided the issue in reference and was not required to decide in individual case and after deciding the issues referred, the individual cases should have been left to regular Bench. I failed to appreciate this argument. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this judgment is per incurium because the Full Bench should have decided the issue in reference and was not required to decide in individual case and after deciding the issues referred, the individual cases should have been left to regular Bench. I failed to appreciate this argument. A judgment can be declared per-incurium, when the judgment is contrary to the relevant Act and Rule or failed to notice of authorative judgment. In this connection, following judgments are relevant: (1)State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer, AIR 2003 SC 2443 . (2) Finest Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Export Ltd., (2001)6 SCC 356 . (3) State of U.P. v. Synthetics & Chemical Ltd. (1991)4 SCC 139 . 14. In that view of the mater, this case is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court and I have no other way but to dismiss this petition, but without any cost.