JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. The instant writ application has been filed by the wife of late Dayashankar Singh impugning the District Order No. 309/2013 dated 22.01.2013 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi being confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2014 and for grant of consequential financial benefits to the petitioner in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Courts. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the husband of the petitioner late Dayashankar Singh was appointed as constable in the district of Bettiah, Bihar as special case in the year 1985. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from services on the ground of irregular appointment in the year 2003. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal the husband of the petitioner filed W.P.(S) No. 4077/2003, which was allowed vide order dated 23.11.2011 with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, another charge sheet 27.07.2012 was issued by the S.S.P, Ranchi alleging therein that the appointment was made without advertisement. The matter was inquired into and the conducting officer submitted the inquiry report. The husband of the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation against the proposed order of dismissal vide order dated 13.12.2012 and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner submitted his explanation. Vide order dated 22.01.2013, the S.S.P., Ranchi passed the order of dismissal and the appeal was preferred by the husband of the petitioner before the D.I.G., South Chota Nagpur Range, Ranchi and during pendency of the appeal the husband of the petitioner died on 06.05.2013. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-8) the D.I.G of Police rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved the petitioner, wife of the late Dayashankar Singh filed the present writ application with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner late Dayashankar Singh (Constable No. 17) was terminated from services in pursuance to a departmental proceeding vide Departmental Proceeding No. 246/2012. Since the appointment of the husband of the petitioner as Constable was made without due procedure and his appointment was neither a regular appointment nor it was under compassionate ground, as the husband of the petitioner was appointed under special circumstances. Since the appointment of the husband of the petitioner as Constable was made without due procedure and his appointment was neither a regular appointment nor it was under compassionate ground, as the husband of the petitioner was appointed under special circumstances. No advertisement was issued and process of appointment in a public post, prescribed under law had not been followed. The disciplinary authority after considering all the explanation finding to be unsatisfactory vide Ranchi District Order No. 309/2013 contained in Memo no. 538 dated 22.01.2013, has been pleased to dismiss the husband of the petitioner from services which has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2014. 4. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nitika Agrawal (J.C. to A.G), appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the catena of judgments and the petitioner is entitled to be extended with the same benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire proceeding is based on no evidence and the findings of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority are perverse and the impugned orders have been passed in the teeth of the provisions made in Bihar Police Manual as well as the legal norms, therefore, the same are unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel for the State has assiduously advanced the arguments that there has been no procedural irregularity from the very initiation of proceeding till its culmination nor the proceeding is fraught with any lack of evidence, therefore, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are justified and are not liable to be interfered with. 7. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and going through the pleadings as well as the order passed in the cases of other Constables identically placed and whose terminations were set aside in different writ petitions, in my considered opinion, a view favourable to the husband of the petitioner ought to be adopted, specially because the petitioner has approached for equitable jurisdiction and taking into consideration fact that the services of the husband of the petitioner was free from blemishes and during his continuance he has worked to the best of his ability and he received several rewards and letters of appreciation for best services rendered by him. Moreover, the husband of the petitioner received police training course at the huge cost incurred by the Government and he successfully completed the same. 8. Another ground which is in favour of the husband of the petitioner is similarly situated employees who have been allowed to continue in services by virtue of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the High Court’s order, more particularly the judgments passed in Civil Appeal No. 2899 of 2007 (Sushil Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Ors) and L.P.A. No. 1167 of 2009 (The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Manzoor Alam). 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the husband of the petitioner was entitled to be extended with the benefit of continuity of services on the ground of parity. No doubt the initial appointment of the petitioner made in the year 1985 deprived large number of eligible candidates from the opportunity of appointment but none of them have approached this Court challenging the process of appointment. In that view of the matter, the husband of the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit as has been granted in case of other candidates. 10. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 22.01.2013 vide Annexure-5 and order dated 31.01.2014 vide Annexure-8 are quashed and set aside and the order of dismissal of the services of the husband of the petitioner being affirmed by the appellate authority are set as naught. Since the husband of the petitioner has died in the meantime, there is no scope for reinstatement in services. Since the husband of the petitioner has died in the meantime, there is no scope for reinstatement in services. However, the husband of the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in services till his death i.e. 06.05.2013 and the period from dismissal from services till his death shall be counted as continuous period of service with consequential benefits. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.