JUDGMENT : L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 1. An imperfect, ad-hoc and wavering approach to an otherwise important and serious matter, has generated voluminous litigation and made the future of hundreds of employees uncertain. The concerned Departments of the State Government are squarely to blame for this. 2. As in the other States in the country, quite a large number of Public Corporations were created in the State of Bihar also, without assessing their utility or viability. On the Corporations becoming unviable, the immediate problem was to accommodate the employees, since the Corporations were not in a position to pay their emoluments. One of the methods adopted by the State was to absorb such employees, in the other viable Corporations or Departments of Government. 3. The State of Bihar passed a Resolution on 1.3.1996 (Annexure-4 to LPA No. 908 of 2006) initiating proposal for taking of the employees of the State Corporations, who were working on Accounts side in the Treasury Department of the State. Options were invited and a semblance of selection was also undertaken. One of the conditions was that, on being found fit, the employees of the Corporation would be engaged in the Treasury Department for a period of three years and if their work is found satisfactory, the deputation would be extended by two more years. It was made clear that the continuance of such employees will be subject to the filling up the vacancies through regular process. 4. The employees of the Corporations, who are engaged in the Treasury Department, gained an impression that on conclusion of three years there, they would be entitled to be absorbed in the same Department, which is a State Service. They filed writ petitions in this behalf, which, in turn were disposed of with a direction to the Government to consider their cases. 5. Ultimately, the Government passed an order on 8.3.2006 providing for absorption of such employees, but in the various District Treasuries in the appropriate scale of pay. The employees had grievance about the pay-scales attached to the posts as well as the cadre in which they are proposed to be absorbed. Challenging this and other relevant aspects the employees filed CWJC Nos. 3890 of 2006 and 6020 of 2006. The Government filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petitions. 6. The employees had grievance about the pay-scales attached to the posts as well as the cadre in which they are proposed to be absorbed. Challenging this and other relevant aspects the employees filed CWJC Nos. 3890 of 2006 and 6020 of 2006. The Government filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petitions. 6. After considering the contentions advanced by the parties in detail, the learned single Judge passed a common judgment dated 4.9.2006 directing that the absorption of the employees shall be in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, and extended the pay-scale attached to that post before. The employees are not satisfied with same and filed these two LPA. 7. Heard Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in LPA Nos. 908 of 2006 and also Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, senior counsel appearing in LPA No. 963 of 2006 and Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The proposal to take the employees of the State Corporations working on the Accounts side, on deputation to the Treasury was made in the year 1996. Though it is vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that a promise was made to the effect that on completion of three years of service, they would be absorbed in the Treasury service, the same is not evident from the records. CWJC No. 8894 of 2002 and its analogous cases were filed with a prayer to direct the Government to absorb the employees. It was only on 8.3.2006, that the Government passed an order directing that such of the employees who have been taken on deputation from the State Corporations and working in the Treasury Department shall be absorbed, but against the vacancies in the District Cadre, meaning thereby that the absorption was not to be in the vacancies available in the Treasury Department. The relevant pay scale was also indicated. 9. By the time the appellants were engaged in the Treasury Department on deputation, the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk were of unified cadre. While they were continuing on deputation, demerger took place and the post of Upper Division Clerk was placed in a higher scale of pay. Further absorption in the Treasury Department would have been more beneficial to the appellants. It is with these grievances that the appellants filed CWJC Nos. While they were continuing on deputation, demerger took place and the post of Upper Division Clerk was placed in a higher scale of pay. Further absorption in the Treasury Department would have been more beneficial to the appellants. It is with these grievances that the appellants filed CWJC Nos. 3890 of 2006 and 6020 of 2006, claiming following reliefs:- (i) To quash the decision of the Government in the Finance Department contained in letter No. 1437 F(2), dated 8.3.2006 (Ann.1) by which the Collectors have been directed to absorb by appointment the deputationists in the Treasuries from Boards/Corporations in the joint cadre of L.D. Clerks of the Collectorate in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/- in relaxation of age limits under certain terms and conditions contained therein. (ii) To quash the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 1096, dated 22.2.2006 in so far as the deputationists from the Boards/Corporations are concerned, by which the cadre of the employees in the Treasuries of the State has been amalgamated with the Collectorate cadre of L.D. Clerks in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/-. (iii) Also to quash the decision taken by the Cabinet in Memorandum No. 7128, dated 30.12.2005 in compliance of which the aforesaid two impugned orders dated 22.2.2006 and 8.3.2006 have been issued. They are ex-facie arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the decision already taken by the Governor during Presidents Rule on 6.10.2005 by concealing material facts to mislead the Government and there is no rationale in bye-passing the said decision of the Governor during Presidents Rule. (iv) For a direction for absorbing the petitioners and similarly situated persons in posts under the State Govt. equivalent to those held by them immediately before their deputation. 10. The learned single Judge granted certain reliefs, such as, that the absorption shall be against the post of Upper Division Clerk with corresponding scale of pay, and that pay protection shall be ensured. 11. The principal contention advanced in these appeals is that had the order of absorption been passed in the year 2005, the appellants would have become eligible for pension. 12. It is important to note here that nowhere in their writ petitions the appellants herein made any grievance that the delay in issuing the order of absorption has resulted in denial of pension to them. The same was not put in issue, at all. 12. It is important to note here that nowhere in their writ petitions the appellants herein made any grievance that the delay in issuing the order of absorption has resulted in denial of pension to them. The same was not put in issue, at all. Therefore, we do not take the plea of the appellants, in this regard into account. The learned single Judge has taken into account all the correspondences that ensued in relation to the matter and felt that the appellants cannot insist that they must be absorbed in the Treasury Department alone. We are in agreement with the findings made in the writ petitions. 13. In the present appeals certain important developments have taken place. Through its order dated 24.4.2007 the Government has withdrawn the proceeding dated 8.3.2006 in their entirety. In the year 2010 some aspect of the absorption was restored. However, these developments are not subject matter of these proceedings. If the appellants feel that the subsequent resolutions are detrimental to them, it shall be open to them to work out their remedies. 14. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeals, but leave it open to the appellants to work out their remedies in case any order passed during the pendency of the appeals has resulted in detriment to them.