JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following prayer: (a) to issue appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing part of the office order as contained in Memo No. 252 dated 08.08.2016 issued under the signature of the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Yojna), Tribal Area, Doranda whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given fresh appointment instead of absorbing his service after he has served the Department for more than 30 years which is contrary to the direction and spirit of the order passed in WP(S) No. 6050 of 2010 dated 15.05.2015 in the case of petitioner (Gopal Oraon v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.). (b) To issue appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to issue fresh order absorbing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as a daily wager and thereafter, grant all the consequential benefits for which the petitioner is legally entitled under law. (c) Any other Relief(s) for which petitioner is very much entitled under law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner was working as driver on daily wages with the respondents. His services were terminated. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the department which was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing WP(S) No. 6050 of 2010. The said writ application was disposed of on 15.05.2015. While disposing of the said writ application in paragraph no. 9 the following has been observed by the learned Single Judge: “9. After perusal of entire documents on record and having heard the respective counsels at length, it appears that even after impugned order of termination, the petitioner has been continuing in services on daily wages basis. Since, the services of the petitioner has not been terminated on the ground of any misconduct, it would be in the interest of justice for respondents to consider a long experiences of about 30 years as Driver against the vacancies as mentioned in Annexure-A to the Supplementary counter-affidavit.” 3. After observing as aforesaid, a direction was given to consider absorption of the petitioner in the vacant post of driver in the backdrop of continuous, interrupted, unblemished service for about 30 years. After observing as aforesaid, a direction was given to consider absorption of the petitioner in the vacant post of driver in the backdrop of continuous, interrupted, unblemished service for about 30 years. It is necessary to quote paragraph no. 10 also for better appreciation. “10. Viewed thus, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in any of the aforesaid vacant posts of driver, in the backdrop of continuous, uninterrupted and unblemished services of about 30 years, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if any arrears, legally due and admissible, is still payable to the petitioner, the same may be paid within the aforesaid period.” 4. The respondents thereafter considered the case of the petitioner and had issued fresh appointment letter to the petitioner on 08.08.2016. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of fresh appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been absorbed in service pursuant to the aforesaid order. 6. From the earlier round of litigation and the findings of the learned Single Judge, I find that the learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding of the fact and has held that the petitioner has continuously worked for 30 years and his services were uninterrupted and unblemished. This finding of fact has attained finality. 7. Considering the aforesaid fact, the petitioner should get the benefits of these 30 years of service which he has worked. Though the petitioner has been appointed afresh, but considering the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the fact that the petitioner had worked for 30 years, I direct the respondents to consider and add the earlier service period of the petitioner for the purpose of calculating his post retiral and pensionary benefits. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application stands disposed of.