JUDGMENT : With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. Heard 3. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 4. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel has filed I.A. No. 6325 of 2021 for acceptance of Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and waives notice on their behalf. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6325 of 2021 stands disposed of. 6. This appeal is being heard at this stage on consent given by the parties. 7. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the State of Jharkhand under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.08.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2785 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed with a direction to grant the benefit similar to the writ petitioners of CWJC No.10680 of 2000. However, the petitioners have been granted notional benefit from 09.12.1986 as they failed to approach the Court within a reasonable time as they waited for the outcome of the aforesaid writ petition and when the favourable order was passed, they approached the High Court for similar benefit. As such, actual monetary benefit has been limited to 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition only. 8. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The writ petitioners were appointed in private Engineering Colleges on different dates. The writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed in Gaya Engineering College on the post of Laboratory Assistant on 26.03.1984 and 10.09.1985 respectively, whereas both petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on the Class-IV post in the said Engineering College on 21.03.1984. The private Engineering Colleges were taken over by the undivided State of Bihar by virtue of bringing an ordinance, in the name of Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Ordinance, 1986 (Ordinance 37 of 1986). Thereafter, the Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Ordinance, 1987, hereinafter to be referred to as the “Ordinance, 1987”, was promulgated and the same was published on 18th April, 1987. Thereafter, the Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Ordinance, 1987, hereinafter to be referred to as the “Ordinance, 1987”, was promulgated and the same was published on 18th April, 1987. The undivided State of Bihar, by virtue of Ordinance, 1987, took decision to take over three Engineering Colleges namely, Indian College of Engineering, Motihari, JMIT, Darbhanga and Magadh Engineering College, Gaya. Subsequently, the Ordinance, 1987 took the shape of an enactment in the name of Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Act, 1991 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “Act, 1991”). The Engineering Colleges were taken over by the State of Bihar with effect from 09.12.1986. The employees of the said Engineering Colleges were treated as ad hoc employees under Clause 5(1) of the said Ordinance and as such, the petitioners were also treated as ad hoc employees in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya since 09.12.1986. The competent authority constituted a Screening Committee on the basis of the provisions contained in the Ordinance, 1987 for making recommendation about regularization of the services of other employees (teaching and non-teaching). The Screening Committee recommended for regularization of the services of the writ petitioners and other employees with effect from 31.01.1991 and also recommended for termination of other ad hoc employees (teaching and non-teaching) who were working since 09.12.1986 on the ground of over age. They were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991. The writ petitioners were confirmed and regularized with effect from 31.01.1991 and got annual increment and all the monetary benefits of permanent employees from the same date. The writ petitioners were transferred to other places. At the time of re-organization of the State of Bihar, since the writ petitioners were posted at Government Polytechnic, Adityapur which falls within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, as such, their services were given to the State of Jharkhand in course of cadre allocation in view of the provision of Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The employees, whose services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991, moved before the Patna High Court and got their services reinstated. Few aggrieved employees, namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey and others preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 before the Patna High Court for continuity of service with effect from 09.12.1986. The employees, whose services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991, moved before the Patna High Court and got their services reinstated. Few aggrieved employees, namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey and others preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 before the Patna High Court for continuity of service with effect from 09.12.1986. The Patna High Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 08.09.2006, has held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of annual increments from the date of take-over of the colleges i.e., with effect from 09.12.1986 as well as continuity in service for all the years including for the period during which they were out of service on account of termination holding that calculations, however, would be notional from 31.01.1991 till 05.09.1996, the period during which they were out of service. The State of Bihar, against the order dated 08.09.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000, had preferred a review application being Civil Review No.61/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2014. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar issued a memo being Memo No.715 dated 10.03.2014, in pursuance of order dated 08.09.2006 and 29.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 and Civil Review No.61/2008 respectively, addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar for issuance of salary slips in favour of the petitioners of the said writ petition after calculating the annual increment with effect from 09.12.1986. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 of C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh and Bindeshwari Jha are posted within the State of Jharkhand and their services were given to the State of Jharkhand in cadre division. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 of C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh and Bindeshwari Jha are posted within the State of Jharkhand and their services were given to the State of Jharkhand in cadre division. The writ petitioners, therefore, claims that when the teachers of the said Engineering College, who were serving in those colleges from before the Ordinance, 1987 passed by the State of Bihar and worked on ad hoc basis since the date of take-over with effect from 09.12.1986 and whose services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991, got their services confirmed and regularized with effect from 09.12.1986 with all annual increments from the said date, therefore, the petitioners also deserve the same treatment and they shall also be regularized with effect from 09.12.1986 and the annual increments must be calculated from the said date in the case of the writ petitioners also otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that one Baleshwar Sharma, who was working as Laboratory Assistant in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya, moved before Patna High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014, praying therein to treat his services confirmed and regularized since 09.12.1986 and to pay annual increments with effect from the said date in the light of the order dated 08.09.2006 and 29.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and Civil Review No.61/2008 respectively and also for consequential monetary benefits. The aforesaid writ petition filed by said Baleshwar Sharma was allowed in terms of order dated 25.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014 by the Patna High Court. The further case of the writ petitioners is that they are having unblemished service record. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have served as Laboratory Assistant at different places on transfer whereas petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are serving on Class IV post. The petitioner No.1 has retired after attaining the age of superannuation from Government Polytechnic, Adityapur whereas petitioner No.2 is posted as Laboratory Assistant in Government Polytechnic, Bhaga (BIT Sindri Campus), Dhanbad. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are posted on Class-IV post at Government Polytechnic, Adityapur. 3 and 4 are serving on Class IV post. The petitioner No.1 has retired after attaining the age of superannuation from Government Polytechnic, Adityapur whereas petitioner No.2 is posted as Laboratory Assistant in Government Polytechnic, Bhaga (BIT Sindri Campus), Dhanbad. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are posted on Class-IV post at Government Polytechnic, Adityapur. The writ petitioners made representation on 11.03.2019 and 07.05.2019 before the respondent No.3 for confirming and regularizing their services with all annual increments payable since 09.12.1986 as has been directed by the Patna High Court in the case of other similarly situated persons and has been acted upon by the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar by issuing Memo No.715 dated 10.03.2014, but the respondents did not take any step in this regard in their favour. The writ petitioners having no option, invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2785 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2020 holding the writ petitioners entitled to similar benefit as was extended in favour of the writ petitioners of CWJC No.10680 of 2000. However, the petitioners were held entitled for notional benefit from 09.12.1986 as they failed to approach the Court within a reasonable time and thus waiting for the outcome of the writ petition and when the favourable order was passed, they approached the High Court for similar benefit and as such actual monetary benefit is limited to 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 9. Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned A.C. to S.C.-I, appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the order passed by the Patna High Court is not applicable on or after 15.11.2000 and, therefore, on this ground alone the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Save and except this ground, the appellant-State of Jharkhand has not agitated any other ground in assailing the order. 10. Per contra, Mr. Save and except this ground, the appellant-State of Jharkhand has not agitated any other ground in assailing the order. 10. Per contra, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners, has submitted that the ground upon which the present intra-court appeal has been filed, is having no force because the litigation started while there was no bifurcation of the State i.e., prior to enactment of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. According to him, the case started when the undivided State of Bihar came out with Ordinance, 1987 for taking over the private Engineering Colleges. The aforesaid Ordinance contains the provision to treat the employees working as on the date of taking over i.e., with effect from 09.12.1986, to be treated as ad hoc employees. Subsequently the aforesaid Ordinance, 1987 took the shape of an Act, in the name of Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Act, 1991. Thereafter, in the case of other similarly situated persons who had preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. 10680 of 2000 prior to the bifurcation of the State before Patna High Court, it was held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of annual increments from the date of take-over of the colleges i.e., with effect from 09.12.1986 as well as continuity in service for all the years including for the period during which they were out of service on account of termination holding that calculations, however, would be notional from 31.01.1991 till 05.09.1996, the period during which they were out of service and, therefore, it cannot be now said by the State of Jharkhand that the order passed by the Patna High Court is not applicable merely because their cadre has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand after coming into effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. The other submission has been made that if the writ petitioners will be discriminated merely on account of coming into effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, it will be discriminatory so far as the cases of the employees who have remained in the State of Bihar and the writ petitioners who have come to the State of Jharkhand after cadre allocation. According to the learned counsel, it is the settled position of law that due to any enactment of bifurcation of the State, the employees concerned whose cadres are being affected due to such re-organization, their service condition cannot be allowed to be altered. According to the learned counsel, learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, is correct in passing the order. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 12. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the undisputed facts, which read as under :- The writ petitioners were appointed in private Engineering Colleges on different dates in the year 1984 and 1985. The private Engineering Colleges were taken over the undivided State of Bihar by virtue of bringing an ordinance, in the name of Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over Ordinance), 1986 (Ordinance 37, 1986). Thereafter, the “Ordinance, 1987”, was promulgated and the same was published on 18th April, 1987. The undivided State of Bihar, by virtue of Ordinance, 1987, took decision to take over three Engineering Colleges namely, Indian College of Engineering, Motihari, JMIT, Darbhanga and Magadh Engineering, Gaya. Subsequently, the Ordinance, 1987 took the shape of an enactment in the name of Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Act, 1991. The Engineering Colleges were taken over by the State of Bihar with effect from 09.12.1986. The employees of the said Engineering Colleges were treated as ad hoc employees under Clause 5(1) of the said Ordinance and as such, the petitioners were also treated as ad hoc employees in the Gaya Engineering College since 09.12.1986. A Screening Committee was constituted on the basis of the provisions contained in the Ordinance, 1987 for making recommendation about regularization of the services of the employees (teaching and non-teaching). The Screening Committee recommended for regularization of the services of the writ petitioners and other employees with effect from 31.01.1991 and also recommended for termination of other ad hoc employees (teaching and non-teaching) who were working since 09.12.1986 on the ground of over age. They were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991. The Screening Committee recommended for regularization of the services of the writ petitioners and other employees with effect from 31.01.1991 and also recommended for termination of other ad hoc employees (teaching and non-teaching) who were working since 09.12.1986 on the ground of over age. They were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991. The writ petitioners were confirmed and regularized with effect from 31.01.1991 and got annual increment and all the monetary benefits of permanent employees from the same date. The writ petitioners were transferred to other places. At the time of re-organization of the State of Bihar, since the writ petitioners were posted at Government Polytechnic, Adityapur within the territory of the State of Jharkhand, as such, their services were given to the State of Jharkhand in course of cadre allocation in view of the provision of Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. The employees, whose services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991, moved before the Patna High Court and got their services reinstated. Some of the aggrieved employees, namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey and others preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 before the Patna High Court for continuity of service with effect from 09.12.1986. The Patna High Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, vide order dated 08.09.2006, held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of annual increments from the date of take-over of the colleges i.e., with effect from 09.12.1986 as well as continuity in service for all the years including for the period during which they were out of service on account of termination holding that calculations, however, would be notional from 31.01.1991 till 05.09.1996, the period during which they were out of service. The State of Bihar, against the order dated 08.09.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000, had preferred a review application being Civil Review No.61/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2014. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar issued a memo being Memo No.715 dated 10.03.2014, in pursuance of order dated 08.09.2006 and 29.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 and Civil Review No.61/2008 respectively, addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar for issuance of salary slips in favour of the petitioners of the said writ petition after calculating the annual increment with effect from 09.12.1986. The petitioner No.1, 3 and 4 of C.W.J.C. No.10680/2000 namely, Sanath Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh and Bindeshwari Jha are posted within the State of Jharkhand and their services were given to the State of Jharkhand in cadre division. The writ petitioners, therefore, claims that when the teachers of the said Engineering College who were serving in those colleges from before the Ordinance, 1987 passed by the State of Bihar and worked on ad hoc basis since the date of take-over with effect from 09.12.1986 and whose services were terminated with effect from 31.01.1991, got their services confirmed and regularized with effect from 09.12.1986 with all annual increments from the said date, the petitioners also deserve the same treatment and they shall also be regularized with effect from 09.12.1986 and the annual increments must be calculated from the said date in the case of the writ petitioners also, otherwise there will be violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. One Baleshwar Sharma who was working as Laboratory Assistant in the Magadh Engineering College, Gaya moved before Patna High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014, praying therein to treat his services confirmed and regularized since 09.12.1986 and to pay annual increments with effect from the said date in the light of the order dated 08.09.2006 and 29.01.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680 and Civil Review No.61/2008 respectively and also for consequential monetary benefits. The aforesaid writ petition filed by said Baleshwar Sharma was allowed in terms of order dated 25.04.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014 by the Patna High Court. The writ petitioners made representation on 11.03.2019 and 07.05.2019 before the respondent No.3 for confirming and regularizing their services with all annual increments since 09.12.1986, as has been directed by the Patna High Court in the case of other similarly situated persons and has been acted upon by the Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar by issuing Memo No.715 dated 10.03.2014 but the respondents did not take any step in this regard in their favour. The writ petitioners having no option, invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2785 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2020 holding the writ petitioners entitled to similar benefit as was extended in favour of the writ petitioners of CWJC No.10680 of 2000. The writ petitioners having no option, invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2785 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2020 holding the writ petitioners entitled to similar benefit as was extended in favour of the writ petitioners of CWJC No.10680 of 2000. However, the petitioners were held entitled for notional benefit from 09.12.1986 as they failed to approach the Court within a reasonable time and thus waiting for the outcome of the writ petition and when the favourable order was passed, they approached the High Court for similar benefit and as such actual monetary benefit is limited to 3 years prior to the filing of the writ petition, which has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand in the present intra-court appeal. 13. Thus, it is evident that the claim of the writ petitioners is based upon an order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.09.2006 directing the respondents to give the benefits of the annual increments to the petitioners from the date of take-over of the colleges i.e., with effect from 09.12.1986, as well as continuity in service for all the years including for the period during which they were out of service on account of termination. Such calculations, however, would be notional from 31.01.1991 till 05.09.1996. The said calculation and payments were directed to be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as under :- “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the proposition of law as stated above this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to give the benefits of annual increments to the petitioners from the date of take over of the colleges, i.e. from 9.12.1986, as well as continuity in service for all the years including for the period during which they were out of service on account of termination. Such calculations, however, will be notional from the period 31.1.1991 till 5.9.1996. The said calculations and payments on account of the increments must be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Such calculations, however, will be notional from the period 31.1.1991 till 5.9.1996. The said calculations and payments on account of the increments must be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.” It is evident from the aforesaid order that the learned Single Judge while passing such direction as quoted and referred hereinabove, has taken into consideration the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1172 of 1991. A review petition was filed against the aforesaid order being Review No.61 of 2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2014. Thereafter, one Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.1030 of 2015 was filed but the said appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2018. The State of Bihar, being aggrieved with the order passed in L.P.A. No.1030 of 2015, preferred Special Leave Petition being S.L.P. No.13839 of 2018 which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is evident from the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000, decided on 08.09.2006, that reference of consideration of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1172 of 1991 along with other analogous cases has been made wherein Notification dated 31.01.1991 by which services of the petitioners along with certain other employees were terminated with immediate effect was questioned. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.1996 by another Co-ordinate Single Judge of the Patna High Court whereby and whereunder following order was passed as under paragraph 42 thereof, which reads as under :- “42. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of termination of services of the petitioners are, therefore, set aside. The respondents authorities will now give head of position of the petitioners in opportunity of hearing within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment and there upon take a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act. The petitioners, however, are not immediately reinstated in service but their reinstatement in service will depend upon the result of the decision by the governmental authorities which will be taken after giving the employees concerned an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners, however, are not immediately reinstated in service but their reinstatement in service will depend upon the result of the decision by the governmental authorities which will be taken after giving the employees concerned an opportunity of hearing. If, on hearing being given to them the respondents authorities are of the view that these petitioners should be absorbed in service, such decision must follow. It is, however, made clear that if the respondents authorities do not complete the aforesaid exercise of hearing within the period aforesaid, in that case the petitioners will be entitled to be reinstated in service upon the expiry of the aforesaid period of four months. On such reinstatement the petitioners will not however, be entitled to the payment of back wages but their continuity in services must be maintained.” 14. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed before Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No.17739 of 2014. The Patna High Court (learned Single Judge) has allowed the writ petition in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000. 15. The writ petitioners, in the instant case, have also sought for the similar benefits as was directed to be paid by the Patna High Court in favour of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and when their grievance has not been redressed, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2785 of 2019 has been filed. 16. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the factual aspect involved in C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000 and while considering so, the conclusion has been arrived at holding therein that the case of the writ petitioners is similar to that of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000. The learned Single Judge has considered the fact that the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 has attained finality, since S.L.P. No.13839 of 2018 filed against the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2006 has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2018. Therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusive finding holding that the writ petitioners are also entitled to get the similar benefit as was directed to be granted in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000. 17. Therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusive finding holding that the writ petitioners are also entitled to get the similar benefit as was directed to be granted in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10680 of 2000. 17. The only ground, upon which the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been questioned, is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is since based upon an order passed by the Patna High Court, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, for the reason the order passed by the Patna High Court on or after 15.11.2000 is not having binding effect upon the Jharkhand High Court. 18. There is no dispute that the order passed by the different High Courts is not having binding precedence upon another High Court. Even though the order passed by different High Court is having no binding effect, but order passed by the different High Courts is having the persuasive value for coming to a conclusion, taking into consideration the facts of the case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Pradip J. Mehta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad [ (2008) 14 SCC 283 ], wherein at paragraph 23, it has been held which reads as under :- “23. Although, the judgments referred to above were cited at the Bar in the High Court, which were taken note of by the learned Judges of the Bench of the High Court, but without either recording its agreement or dissent, it answered the two questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that the High Court should, especially in the event of its contra view or dissent, have discussed the aforesaid judgments of the different High Courts and recorded its own reasons for its contra view. We quite see the fact that the judgments given by a High Court are not binding on the other High Court(s), but all the same, they have persuasive value. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the view taken by the other High Courts but, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefor. The judgment of the other High Courts, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons.” In the given facts of the instant case the litigation started on the day when the undivided State brought the Ordinance, 1987 for taking over private Engineering Colleges which contains a provision to take over the private Engineering Colleges. The aforesaid Ordinance, 1987 stipulates about treating the employees working in the said private Engineering Colleges to be treated as ad hoc employees. Subsequently, the said Ordinance took the shape of an Act i.e., Bihar Private Engineering College (Taken Over) Act, 1991. When no decision was taken by the State of Bihar for regularizing the services of the employees and services of some of the employees were terminated vide notification dated 31.01.1991, writ petitions were filed being C.W.J.C. No. 1172 of 1991 and analogous cases, whereby and whereunder the aforesaid notification of termination of services of the employees was quashed with a directions to the respondents to give the petitioners opportunity of hearing within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment and there upon take a decision under Subsection (3) of Section 5 of the said Act. The petitioners, however, are not immediately reinstated in service but their reinstatement in service will depend upon the result of the decision by the governmental authorities which will be taken after giving the employees concerned an opportunity of hearing. If, on hearing being given to them the respondents authorities are of the view that these petitioners should be absorbed in service, such decision must follow. If the respondents authorities do not complete the aforesaid exercise of hearing within the period aforesaid, in that case, the petitioners will be entitled to be reinstated in service upon the expiry of the aforesaid period of four months. On such reinstatement the petitioners will not however, be entitled to the payment of back wages but their continuity in services must be maintained. On such reinstatement the petitioners will not however, be entitled to the payment of back wages but their continuity in services must be maintained. Another set of employees, when they were not given similar treatment, preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 wherein direction was passed, as quoted and referred hereinabove. Subsequent thereto, another writ petition was filed being C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014 which was disposed of in terms of order passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000. Therefore, the fact is not in dispute that the case of the writ petitioners of the instant case is similar to that of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014. The writ petitioners, due to effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, have been allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand but merely because the cadre of the writ petitioners have been allocated to the State of Jharkhand, that does not mean that they will be given different treatment to that of the co-employees who remained in the successor State of Bihar. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is taken to be correct then the effect would be that the employees who have taken birth in a State which was undivided during the relevant time and due to the effect of the statute i.e., the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 the employees who have been allocated the cadre to the other successor State, will be given different treatment which will be unreasonable. The Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 since has been enacted by the Parliament, therefore, by virtue of enactment, the concerned employees who are being allocated the cadre of successor State, cannot be allowed to suffer. Further, it requires to refer herein, after coming into effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, on or after15.11.2000 there will be two successor States after bifurcation of the undivided State of Bihar i.e., successor State of Bihar and successor State of Jharkhand As such, the status which has been given to one successor State i.e., successor State of Bihar, the said benefit cannot be disallowed in favour of the employees who are coming to the another successor State i.e., successor State of Jharkhand. Therefore, according to our considered view, the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the learned Single Judge since is based upon the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014, are not applicable to the employees who have come to the State of Jharkhand due to bifurcation of the State, is having no force. 19. The other reason is that Section 72/73 of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 provides that there will be no alteration in the service conditions of one or the other employee who will be subjected to the provision of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, in detriment to their interest. The writ petitioners, in the instant case, who have come to the jurisdiction of the successor State of Jharkhand, after coming into effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, are having same cause of action which were with the employees whose cadre has been finally allocated to the successor State of Bihar by virtue of the Ordinance, 1987 by which the private Engineering Colleges namely, Indian College of Engineering, Motihari, JMIT, Darbhanga and Magadh Engineering College, Gaya, have been taken over. The aforesaid statute also contains a provision with respect to the status of the employees. Further, some of the employees had earlier moved to the Patna High Court in the year 1991 by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1172 of 1991 and subsequent thereto in the year 2000 and 2014 by filing C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014 respectively. Therefore, the grievance of the writ petitioners who have come to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand due to the effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, is also similar to that of the employees working in the successor State of Bihar before coming into effect of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000 and as such, if the writ petitioners will be given different treatment, it will amount to alteration in the service condition of the employee merely because they have come to the successor State of Jharkhand. 20. 20. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact in entirety, as discussed hereinabove and after going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the instant intra-court appeal, is of the considered view, since the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact in entirety, more particularly, the order passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014, has reached to the conclusion holding the writ petitioners entitled for the similar benefits to that of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.10680 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No.17739/2014, that the finding recorded/decision of learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.