JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 09.12.1998 whereby the name of petitioner from serial no. 1034 have been ordered to be removed from the published provisional seniority list and further for quashing order dated 13.03.1989 whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner be relieved from the work of supervisor along with others and also for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services from the date of termination with all consequential benefits and further for direction upon the respondents to regularise/absorb the services of the petitioner as per order passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 along with other analogous cases. 2. The facts, as delineated, in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 02.01.1987 as Supervisor in Adult Education Programme, purely on temporary basis, for a period of three months, which was subsequently extended for further period of three months vide memo dated 01.05.1987. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 08.06.1987. But the services of the petitioner was again restored and accordingly, she joined on 02.04.1988. But, again his services was terminated vide order dated 13.03.1989 in view of order passed in C.W.J.C No. 3222 of 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before respondent no. 7, who after proper legal advice, restored the services of the petitioner in the Project on 15.06.1990. But, in a general order, the post of Supervisors was abolished, hence, the petitioner was terminated along with others. Against the retrenchment of the said Education Supervisors, the petitioners forming an association, approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.05.1996 with certain observations. In compliance thereof, the respondents took steps in different stages to consider the cases of retrenched supervisors to absorb them even in some other wings of the Government and accordingly a seniority list of those retrenched supervisors, whose services were terminated in June, 1992, were prepared, which was notified vide memo dated 17.08.1994, in which name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 1059. 1059. Thereafter, all the retrenched supervisors were called for interview along with all relevant papers, basing on which, again a seniority list was published vide memo dated 14.12.1997, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 1034. However, for proper implementation and his absorption, as juniors to the petitioner were absorbed and petitioner was debarred from his legal rights, the petitioner filed M.J.C No. 1084 of 1998. However, subsequently it is averred that for the first time, the respondent no. 7 issued an order stating that on examination and scrutiny of documents, it was found that the petitioner had no claim to be appointed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and another filed C.W.J.C No. 5898 of 1999, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2005 with an observation that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered as the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 and analogous cases, however, in view of the fact, brought on record, in supplementary counter affidavit that at the relevant time petitioners were posted in Jamtara in Dumka and Deoghar districts respectively, which do not form part of State of Bihar, hence no positive direction can be issued. 3. In backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner was illegally ordered to be struck off from the Gradation List. The petitioner was getting salary of Supervisor and prescribed amount of money was also deducted against G.P.F and G.I.S. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has also passed departmental examination as temporary employee of Government and on the basis thereof, she was paid increment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992, which has been observed in C.W.J.C No. 5898 of 1999. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor in Adult Education Programme on temporary basis for three months, which was further extended for next three months in the year 1987. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor in Adult Education Programme on temporary basis for three months, which was further extended for next three months in the year 1987. Thereafter, again, the petitioner was assigned the work of supervisor purely on temporary and ad hoc basis, hence, the petitioner not being a full time government employee like others supervisors, cannot claim parity with those supervisors. It has further been submitted that by mistake the name of the petitioner found place in gradation list, which was ordered to be struck off from the gradation list of pay-scale supervisor after examining the matter vide memo dated 9.12.1998. The seniority list containing the name of the petitioner was provisional one and when it was found that the petitioner was not a pay-scale supervisor for whom the seniority list was prepared, the respondent no. 7 immediately struck off the name of the petitioner from the gradation list. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted with vehemence that no person like the petitioner has been absorbed. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there were two type of supervisors engaged for supervision work in Adult Education. In the first category, supervisors were recruited in the pay-scale of Rs. 785/- to 1210/- while in the second category of supervisors, they were engaged on part time and temporary basis and were paid honorarium only, as the petitioner. It has further been submitted that so far order dated 15.06.1992 regarding abolition of service of the petitioner, in which, the petitioner has been said to be a pay-scale supervisor, it is submitted that the same was issued mistakenly describing her to be a pay-scale supervisor. Hence, the petitioner not being a pay-scale employee cannot be said to be covered by the order dated 20.05.1996 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992. It has further been submitted that termination letter stands rectified by virtue of well-reasoned order dated 09.12.1998. It has further been submitted that as per order dated 28.05.1990, the petitioner was ordered to work temporarily and on ad-hoc basis for which she was ordered to be paid honorarium @ 400/- per annum per centre. Thus, the petitioner not being a full time government employee like other pay-scale supervisors cannot claim parity with pay-scale supervisors. 6. It has further been submitted that as per order dated 28.05.1990, the petitioner was ordered to work temporarily and on ad-hoc basis for which she was ordered to be paid honorarium @ 400/- per annum per centre. Thus, the petitioner not being a full time government employee like other pay-scale supervisors cannot claim parity with pay-scale supervisors. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on close scrutiny of documents available on record, I am of the view that petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i)The petitioner was initially appointed vide memo dated 02.01.1987 (Annexure 1) as Supervisor in Adult Education Programme, purely on temporary/ad-hoc basis, for a period of three months in the pay-scale of Rs. 785/- 1210/-, which was subsequently extended for a further period of three months vide memo dated 01.05.1987 (Annexure 2). Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 05.06.1987, but the same was restored vide order dated 27.02.1988. But, again his services was terminated vide order dated 13.03.1989 (Annexure 4) in view of order passed in C.W.J.C No. 3222 of 1988 wherein the Court observed to terminate the service of ad hoc supervisors and make appointment of regular supervisors. Pursuant thereto, after taking legal advise and taking into consideration all the facts i.e. services rendered by petitioner and further the post of Supervisors has been abolished, the respondents vide order dated 28.05.1990 (Annexure 5) ordered to appoint the petitioner on temporary and on ad-hoc basis on honorarium @ 400/- per annum per centre and not on regular pay-scale. However, again her services was terminated vide order dated 15.06.1992. (ii).Learned counsel for the petitioner has though vehemently argued that in the order of termination dated 15.06.1992 the petitioner has been stated to be pay-scale supervisors but the respondents have come up with a case that it was a mistake as it is admitted case that respondents vide order dated 28.05.1990 ordered to appoint the petitioner on honorarium basis and not on regular pay-scale. This Court is inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard that the petitioner was appointed on honorarium basis vide order 28.05.1990. This Court is inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard that the petitioner was appointed on honorarium basis vide order 28.05.1990. (iii).Now, before proceeding further, it would be apposite to quote order dated 22.02.2005 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5898 of 1999, which propelled the petitioner to file the present writ application: “From the record, it is evidently clear that the petitioner is squarely covered as the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 and analogous cases. Specifically in paragraph six of the order cases of similarly situated persons have been considered and relief granted by a Division Bench of this Court, as such this court was inclined to pass same/similar order in favour of the writ petitioners also. However, by filing a supplementary counter affidavit one aspect which has been brought on record is that during the relevant period petitioners were posted at Jamtara in Dumka and Deoghar districts respectively. In view of this matter today as the aforesaid district do not form part of remaining State Bihar rather is a part of Jharkhand, no positive direction can be issued in favour of respondents there. Petitioners, if so advised may invoke the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court or other appropriate authorities at Jharkhand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.” (iv).For the sake of convenience, it would be apposite to quote paragraph 6 and concluding paragraph of order dated 24.05.1996 passed in CWJC No. 5036 of 1992 and analogous cases, which was filed challenging order of termination, in the case of petitioner termination order dated 15.06.1992: 6. In the year, 1990-91 the Government of India after having complete evaluation of the matter again sent a revised scheme to the State Government. As per the staffing pattern under this scheme, in place of 'project officer' a post of 'Co-ordinator' at a honorarium of Rs. 1800/- per month was created. Since the posts of Supervisors were already abolished, therefore, in their places 'perevak” were to be engaged on honorarium basis at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. No post of Assistant Project Officers existed in the revised scheme. 33............... 1800/- per month was created. Since the posts of Supervisors were already abolished, therefore, in their places 'perevak” were to be engaged on honorarium basis at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. No post of Assistant Project Officers existed in the revised scheme. 33............... Therefore, having taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the cases, I dispose of the writ petitions with the following direction to the respondent authroties: (a)to allow the petitioners and intervenors to continue against those 771 posts, against which they were adjusted in terms of the letter of the concerned department, dted 19th December, 1990. But such an adjustment is to be made as per their Seniority. …............. . In compliance thereof, a seniority list prepared by the respondents-authorities was published a notice vide memo dated 17.08.1994, in which, the name of the petitioner finds figure at serial no. 1034 but by subsequent order dated 09.12.1998, her name was struck off from the list by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was working on honorarium basis and as per order passed by the writ Court only cases of such retrenched persons were to be considered who were working on pay-scale basis. (v).In view of the discussions made herein above, in particular, the view of the Court that the petitioner was working on honorarium basis vide order dated 28.05.1990, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 09.12.1998 needs no interference by this Court. (vi).Furthermore, from perusal of order dated 24.05.1996 passed in C.W.J.C No. 5036 of 1992 and analogous cases, it appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondents made a seniority list wherein the name of the petitioner was initially indicated but it was later on struck off on the ground as stated in preceding paragraphs. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.