JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.04.2009 passed in WPS No. 6307 of 2005, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the order of her termination from service, contained in letter no. 619(S) dated 07.07.2004 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Pakur was directed to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that her appointment on such post was illegal. Petitioner had also sought quashing of letter no. 1127 dated 01.08.2004 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur by which she was restrained from discharging her duty. 3. As per the case of the writ petitioner, she was working as Mahila Kaksha Sevika (Female Health Worker) in the Health Department in Pakur Hospital, District-Pakur (the then Santhal Pargana district) on temporary basis. Her services were regularized on the post of Female Health Worker in the scale of Rs. 350-5-425 with other admissible emoluments, vide memo no. 304 dated 15.01.1986 w.e.f. the said date (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). According to her, she had regularly discharged her duty with dedication and discipline till her services were terminated vide order at Annexure-1, dated 07.07.2004, bearing memo no. 619(S) communicated to total similarly situated 32 such employees through memo no. 1127 dated 01.08.2004 by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur. As per the statement made in para 5 of the writ petition, petitioner was confirmed in service on the post vide memo no. 20 dated 10.07.1996 by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sahebganj with effect from 15.1.1989 on completion of three years of service. On completion of 10 years of unblemished and uninterrupted services, she was granted 1st Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 07.07.1996. She continued to work in the department without any adverse remark. She was, however, shocked to receive a letter issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur bearing memo no. 146 dated 02.02.2002 asking her to reply the following charges, allegedly levelled against her:- a. That her appointment was illegal b. She was 60 years of age; c. Her appointment had not been made against any advertisement; d. She had married second time also and if so with whom she had married. e. She was asked to produce educational qualification certificate. e. She was asked to produce educational qualification certificate. f. She was also asked to produce date of birth and residential certificate. 4. According to petitioner, allegations made in the aforesaid letter dated 2.2.2002 were vague and made without conducting any inquiry. She submitted her show-cause giving clarification that she worked as daily wage worker since 1983 and thereafter her service was regularized vide order contained in Memo no. 304 dated 15.01.1986. Petitioner further alleged that through letter contained in Memo No. 1441 dated 08.09.2003 (Annexure-4) issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur, the salary of 32 persons named in the said letter including this petitioner at serial no. 14 were stopped on the ground that they were illegally appointed. 5. One of the persons covered in the letter dated 08.09.2003 Radhey Shyam Prasad Singh had challenged the order of withholding of salary, in WPS No. 5705 of 2003. The said person had also challenged the order of his termination from services bearing Memo No. 203 dated 09.02.2004 through I.A. No. 340 of 2004 filed in the said petition. As per the termination order, his appointment was found to be forged. The respondent State in support of the order of termination, had relied upon the Enquiry Report which discloses that the appointment letter dated 15.12.1984 was found to be forged, as no appointment letter have been issued from the Office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur and training certificate of the petitioner was also found to be forged. The report further discloses that the First Information Report was proposed to be lodged against the said petitioner. 6. Learned Single Judge, however, upon consideration of the rival pleadings of the parties and grounds urged, was pleased to quash the order of termination vide judgment dated 29.10.2004 inter-alia holding; (a) the respondents were prohibited from making further inquiry in respect to the legality and propriety of his appointment said to have been made 16 ½ years ago, more so in the light of the time period of six months stipulated for conclusion of any enquiry by the writ court in WPS No. 3223 of 2001 in respect of the same petitioner. (b) that he was appointed in the year 1984 and the inquiry was signed on 16.08.2003 i.e. almost 19 years since the date of his appointment. There was a bar created by the order passed in WPS No. 3223 of 2001. (b) that he was appointed in the year 1984 and the inquiry was signed on 16.08.2003 i.e. almost 19 years since the date of his appointment. There was a bar created by the order passed in WPS No. 3223 of 2001. As such the inquiry could not have been conducted after six months from the date of communication. The said judgment was challenged by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand in LPA No. 489 of 2005. By judgment dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure-8 to the memo of appeal), reported in 2007(2) JLJR 196 , the learned Division Bench upheld the order passed by the writ court, observing that the inquiry was held much belatedly and the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. Several other persons, whose salary were also withheld by virtue of the same order dated 08.09.2003 bearing Memo No. 1441, (Annexure-4) on the same grounds, approached the writ court, namely, Sadika Begum (widow of employee Md. Brajazul Islam) in WPS No. 722 of 2004, Burhanuddin Sheikh in WPS No. 723 of 2004, Girja Nandan Singh in WPS No. 793 of 2004, Umesh Prasad Singh in WPS No. 786 of 2004, Pradeep Kumar in WPS No. 669 of 2004, Santosh Kumar Dey in WPS No. 674 of 2004 and Navin Kumar Roy in WPS No. 725 of 2004 . These petitioners had also assailed the order of their termination from services, contained in Memo No. 619(S) dated 07.07.2004 (Annexure-5) whereunder the Joint Secretary, Department of Health had communicated to the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur that it was not justified to take work from illegally appointed persons. This order was communicated by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur to all the 32 employees including the present petitioner/appellant, whose salary were also withheld earlier by virtue of the order dated 08.09.2003 bearing Memo No. 1441 (Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal). Learned Single Judge by order dated 24.08.2006 was pleased to quash the orders, terminating the services of those petitioners as being illegal and unwarranted, after consideration of the pleadings of the individual petitioner and also the stand of the respondents. The State had contended that these appointments were fake and illegal. It had also contended that an inquiry was conducted on the issue. The State had contended that these appointments were fake and illegal. It had also contended that an inquiry was conducted on the issue. Learned Single Judge observed that in the first place it had not been indicated as to which of the appointment is fake i.e. based upon fake document; which appointment were made illegally and which were made without inviting applications and holding any process of selection. In some cases names were forwarded by the employment exchange and in some case even interview were conducted. The stand of the State that an inquiry was conducted and appointments were found fake/illegal was held to be of no consequence as admittedly this inquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioners and without associating them in any such inquiry. In the light of allegations made, the petitioners at least had a right to explain. Learned Single Judge found that appointments were made between the year 1984 to 1988 and the impugned order was passed on 08.09.2003 withholding their salary after a lapse of more than 15 years of their appointments, on the ground that their appointments were fake. The learned court had also noticed that the same order withholding salary was subject matter of challenge in WPS No. 5705 of 2003 by one Radhey Shyam Prasad Singh and the writ court had by interim order dated 25.11.2003 directed that if the respondents were taking work from the petitioner then salary shall not be stopped. It was after this order, services of the petitioners were terminated referring to the interim order dated 25.11.2003 passed in WPS No. 5705 of 2003. Apparently, there was no direction for termination by this Court, rather the rights of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were protected. Learned Single Judge observed that in any case, that writ petition was finally allowed vide judgment dated 29.10.2004 and the impugned order dated 08.09.2003 had been quashed. The learned Single Judge took note of the two grounds on which the coordinate bench had quashed the order of withholding salary dated 08.09.2003 and the order of termination of services of the said employee Radhey Shyam Prasad Singh. Learned Single Judge accordingly held that order dated 08.09.2003 is nonest in the eye of law and the consequential action of the respondents in terminating the service of the said petitioners was also illegal and unwarranted. Learned Single Judge accordingly held that order dated 08.09.2003 is nonest in the eye of law and the consequential action of the respondents in terminating the service of the said petitioners was also illegal and unwarranted. As a consequence, petitioners in all those cases were directed to be reinstated forthwith and to be deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits. 7. The judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions were assailed by the aggrieved State in LPA No. 577 of 2006, LPA No. 544 of 2006, LPA No. 547 of 2006, LPA No. 548 of 2006, LPA No. 583 of 2006, LPA No. 579 of 2006, LPA No. 580 of 206 and LPA Nos. 56 & 57 of 2007. By judgment dated 01.03.2007 passed in the aforesaid batch of LPAs enclosed to I.A. No. 697 of 2017 to the present memo of appeal, the learned Division Bench held that similar questions stood decided by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5705 of 2003 which on being challenged by the aggrieved State of Jharkhand was upheld in LPA No. 489 of 2005. Since the same question of law was involved on the same set of facts against the same inquiry, these appeals were also dismissed. This writ petitioner also had preferred the present writ petition i.e. W.P.S. No. 6307 of 2005 challenging the order of withholding of salary vide Memo No. 1441 dated 8.9.2003 (Annexure-4) as also the order of termination of his service contained in letter no. 619 dated 7.7.2004 (Annexure-5) and the consequential letter no. 1127 dated 1.8.2004 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur. It seems from the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant that for some inadvertent circumstances, her case was left out of the batch of cases which were decided by the learned Single Judge i.e. Sadika Begum vs. State of Jharkhand and other analogous cases vide judgment dated 24th August, 2006 (Annexure-7). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no distinctions so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned with that of the other 31 employees who also were aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.9.2003 and 7.7.2004 (Annexure 4 and 5 to the memo of the appeal). 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no distinctions so far as the case of the present appellant is concerned with that of the other 31 employees who also were aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.9.2003 and 7.7.2004 (Annexure 4 and 5 to the memo of the appeal). Common grounds raised by other writ petitioners are also available to the present appellant as she had also remained in service since 1983 for 19-20 years till passing of the impugned order. Her services were in fact confirmed w.e.f. 15.1.1989 on completion of three years of service by order of the Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj as contained in Memo no. 20 dated 10th July, 1996. It is submitted that the fact of confirmation of her service w.e.f. 15.1.1989 by order of the competent authority i.e. Chief Medical Officer cum Civil Surgeon, Dumka as pleaded through statements made at para 5 of the writ petition/memo of appeal have not been controverted by the respondents through their counter-affidavit filed both in writ petition or in the present appeal. In fact, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 7.9.1996 on completion of 10 years of unblemished and uninterrupted services. Reference is made to paragraph no. 7 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents both in the writ petition as well as in the memo of appeal where it is stated that these averments are matters of record. It is further submitted that the so called inquiry conducted into the appointment of the petitioner and other such similarly situated employees were undertaken behind their back. When the services of the petitioner had already been confirmed, the respondent-State was required to conduct a proper departmental inquiry, if at all such a charge was to be inquired into after 19 years of service. 9. It is further submitted that the inquiry report has been enclosed to the counter-affidavit and has also been brought on record as annexure-9 to the memo of this appeal. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry report with respect to the present petitioner only indicates that her appointment was made by Deputy Superintendent, Sub Divisional Hospital, Pakur who was not competent to make such appointment. It further states that the Deputy Superintendent Sub Divisional Hospital, Pakur by letter no. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry report with respect to the present petitioner only indicates that her appointment was made by Deputy Superintendent, Sub Divisional Hospital, Pakur who was not competent to make such appointment. It further states that the Deputy Superintendent Sub Divisional Hospital, Pakur by letter no. 191 dated 5.9.1985 conveyed to the Chief Medical Officer, Dukma that the appointment of the petitioner has been done on his oral order on daily wages on the post of Female Health Worker and she had joined on the said post on 1st May, 1985. Further the Chief Medical Officer, Dumka had through memo no. 304 dated 15.1.1986 conveyed that the petitioner be kept in regular service but the same was in contravention of the rules and should not be repeated in future. It further indicates that the post of female health worker being a Class-IV post, the appointment is required to be made by a committee chaired by the Deputy Commissioner out of panel prepared for it. That no names were obtained from the Employment Exchange nor were the conditions incorporated in the Circular dated 3.12.1980 of the Personnel Department complied with. Therefore, the appointments were illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that not only was the inquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner but in the case of other similarly situated persons also the inquiry report pointed out in similar fashion. However, since the case of the petitioner was left out of the batch of other cases decided by judgment dated 24.8.2006, she could not avail the fruits of the said judgment. The learned Single Judge in her case by the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2009 went on a different line and proceeded to form an opinion on the legality of her initial appointment being guided by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . As a result, though the case of the petitioner stood on same and similar footing like that of other 31 employees but she has been denied parity of treatment. As such, the impugned judgment if not set-aside would cause differential treatment to the petitioner being a similarly situated person. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . As a result, though the case of the petitioner stood on same and similar footing like that of other 31 employees but she has been denied parity of treatment. As such, the impugned judgment if not set-aside would cause differential treatment to the petitioner being a similarly situated person. Learned counsel submits that the issue before the learned Single Judge was about the legality and correctness of the order of termination dated 7.7.2004 which was the common impugned order in all other writ petitions which stood decided in favour of the employees for the reasons indicated therein and also got upheld by the learned Division Bench of the court. Grave injustice would be caused if parity of treatment is not accorded to the writ petitioner who is agitating her cause of action since 2005, though she had completed about 20-21 years of service by then. The learned Single Judge has misdirected itself in rejecting the case of the writ petitioner on totally untenable and different grounds. The writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in January, 2018. For all practical purposes, if the writ petition is allowed, she would only be entitled to admissible post retiral benefits and back wages. 10. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. He submits that the appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal as she had been engaged as a daily wages worker in 1983 and subsequently appointed as a female health worker by Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Pakur who was not the competent authority to do so. The learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter and held that such illegal appointment could not have been regularized in the light of the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Learned counsel for the State has however not refuted the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant that after her initial appointment, the services of the writ petitioner stood confirmed on 15.1.1989 by order dated 10.7.1996 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Sahibganj (Annexure-2) He has also not refuted that writ petitioner has been granted 1st Time Bound Promotion on completion of ten years of her service. Learned counsel for the State also does not dispute that inquiry in question was not conducted in the presence of the writ petitioner or other similarly situated employees. He is not in a position to refute the contention of the appellant that other similarly situated employees who were also aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8.9.2003 and 7.7.2004 (Annexure 4 and 5) had been granted relief by the judgment passed by the writ Court in their respective writ petitions and have been reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed copy of the order of reinstatement of two of such employees namely Umesh Prasad Singh and Navin Roy which are part of I.A. No. 697 of 2017. 11. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties at some length and the relevant material pleadings and documents on record, hereinabove. Certain facts are not in dispute:- i. That the present petitioner is also one of the employees out of 32 whose salary was stopped by the order dated 08.09.2003 (Annexure-4) passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur on the ground that they were illegally appointed and their appointments were forged. ii. The present petitioner was also one of the 32 employees whose services were terminated during pendency of the writ petition bearing WPS No. 5705 of 2003 by the impugned order dated 07.07.2004 bearing memo no. 619(S)(Annexure-5) issued by the Joint Secretary, Health Department and consequently communicated to the employees through memo no. 1127 dated 01.08.2004 by the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur on the ground that joint inquiry report found their appointment illegal. iii. It is not in dispute that the inquiry was conducted behind the back of this petitioner and others similarly situated person aggrieved by the order of termination dated 7.7.2004 (Annexure-5) . iv. It is also not in dispute that the services of the present petitioner was confirmed with effect from 15.01.1989 by order of the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur contained in Memo no. 20 dated 10.07.1996 (Annexure-2). v. No proper departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents before termination of the services of the writ petitioner and other similarly situated employees. vi. It is also not in dispute that the services of the present petitioner was confirmed with effect from 15.01.1989 by order of the Chief Medical Officer, Pakur contained in Memo no. 20 dated 10.07.1996 (Annexure-2). v. No proper departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents before termination of the services of the writ petitioner and other similarly situated employees. vi. The learned Single Judge in the case of Sadika Begum and others observed that the impugned order of termination was passed referring to the interim order dated 25.11.2003 passed in WPS No. 5705 of 2003 which never directed the respondents to terminate the services of such employees, rather the respondents were directed that if they are taking work from the said employee then their salary should not be stopped. vii. The order terminating the services of 32 employees dated 07.07.2004 does not make any reference to any other reason apart from relying upon a report, the inquiry of which was conducted behind the back of all such employees. viii. It is also pertinent to mention here in context of the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) that the Apex Court while directing the Union of India, State Government and other instrumentalities, to take steps to regularize the services of such irregularly appointed employees who had worked for 10 years or more under duly sanctioned post as a onetime measure, at para 53 of the report, had also clarified that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment. ix. The order of confirmation of the writ petitioner was passed on 10.07.1996 w.e.f. 15.01.1989 by an authority i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Sahebganj is also not disputed by the respondents. 12. From the facts and the pleadings on record, it is also evident that what was subjudice before writ court was the order of withholding salary and termination of the petitioner and not the question of regularization of her services. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts and circumstances, it is evident that the writ petitioner was similarly placed with the other employees covered by the two impugned orders dated 08.09.2003 and 07.07.2004 who had been granted relief by the learned Single Judge in their respective cases on common grounds. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts and circumstances, it is evident that the writ petitioner was similarly placed with the other employees covered by the two impugned orders dated 08.09.2003 and 07.07.2004 who had been granted relief by the learned Single Judge in their respective cases on common grounds. The judgments of learned Single Judge were also upheld in appeal by the learned Division Bench. 13. Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of termination of the writ petitioner does not appeal to reason. If, by a quirk of fate, the case of the writ petitioner was decided later on by the impugned judgment dated 13.4.2009, as compared to that of the other similarly situated employees, the learned Single Judge should not have denied similar treatment to her when the very issue relating to the illegality of the termination order had been upheld up to the Division Bench on common grounds. 14. In totality of the facts and circumstances and the discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the case of the writ petitioner/appellant deserves to be treated at par with the case of the other employees such as Sadika Begum, petitioner in WPS No. 722 of 2004 and other similarly situated writ petitioners. The impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single judge, is therefore, set aside. Petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation in January, 2018 and, as such, cannot be reinstated in service. Ends of justice would be met, if the respondents are directed to grant her post retiral benefits as would be admissible treating her in employment. However, we are not inclined to grant back wages to the petitioner more so, when the employer could not avail of service of the employee all these years. 15. Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.