JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. I.A. No. 4150 of 2020 3. No one has appeared to press this interlocutory application. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4150 of 2020 stands dismissed as not pressed. I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 5. This interlocutory application has been filed for staying and setting aside the letter dated 15.07.2020. 6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, further development has been taken place, whereby, the appointment and financial power of the petitioner has not been sanctioned by the Government vide letter dated 15.07.2020, which has been challenged by way of filing this interlocutory application. 7. Seeing the reasons assigned in the said interlocutory application, I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 is allowed and it is made part of the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 stands disposed of. W.P. (S) No. 493 of 2020 9. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to let the petitioner discharge entire functions attached with the post of the District Engineer, District Board Chatra upon being engaged by the District Board Chatra in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Finance related to appointment on contractual basis of the retired Government employees. 10. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the proceeding of the District Board dated 30.08.2019 contained in Annexure-R-3/A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.10.2019. He further submits that although the petitioner was appointed, but the financial power has not been allowed to operate and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition. He further submits that although the petitioner was appointed, but the financial power has not been allowed to operate and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to Annexure-3 to the writ petition dated 28.04.2016, which is a Circular of appointment on contractual basis and submits that as per Clause 11 of the Circular, if the employee’s age exceeds 65 years, one year appointment can be made and further it has been disclosed that this can be extended for maximum two years that too by way of one year and again one year. It has been further disclosed that if after that period the service of the said person is required to be retained, the Government’s approval is necessary. By way of referring Annexure-1 to I.A. No. 2669 of 2020, which has been disposed of on 16.03.2020, he submits that for another person, another parameter has been adopted. He further submits that charge has been provided to another person, whereby, the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Chatra has been provided the charge of financial power also without approval of the Government and in the last line of the said Annexure-1, it has been stated that his appointment will be subject to the result of this writ petition. 11. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that if the petitioner is allowed to work with all power, the Board has got no objection. 12. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was appointed contrary to the Government’s direction and in that view of the matter, approval of the petitioner’s appointment has been rejected by the Government. He refers to earlier Circular dated 13.11.2014 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition and submits that criteria has been prescribed for appointment on contractual basis, which has not been followed and in that view of the matter, the Government has rejected the approval of the petitioner’s appointment. 13. He refers to earlier Circular dated 13.11.2014 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition and submits that criteria has been prescribed for appointment on contractual basis, which has not been followed and in that view of the matter, the Government has rejected the approval of the petitioner’s appointment. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the Circular at Annexure-3 to the writ petition dated 28.04.2016, which is a latest Circular, wherein, it has been clearly prescribed in Clause 11 that the retired person whose age is above 65 years can be appointed for one year on contractual basis and the appointment can be further extended for one year and further for one year, but not beyond three years as prescribed therein and if the retention of the said person is required after three years, approval of the Government is necessary. The District Board is an autonomous body, in view of Part-IX, Article 243 of the Constitution of India particularly Article 243-G provides powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats. Article 243-M provides part not to apply to certain areas. For giving charge to a particular Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Chatra, no sanction of the Government has been taken, whereas, the Board has taken a decision in favour of the petitioner in view of the Board’s meeting and in spite of that initially financial power of the petitioner has been withheld and subsequently, during the pendency of this writ petition, Annexure-12 contained in I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 has been passed. The Court has perused Annexure-12, which is a non-speaking order. No reasons has been assigned as to why the Circular dated 28.04.2016 is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case. It has not been disclosed why the financial power provided to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Government. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds. The order dated 15.07.2020 contained in Annexure-12 to I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Government to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and guidelines in this regard. 15. Mr. 14. As a cumulative effect of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds. The order dated 15.07.2020 contained in Annexure-12 to I.A. No. 4265 of 2020 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Government to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and guidelines in this regard. 15. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Government will take a decision in light of the direction of this Court within 15 days. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.