Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2008 of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 245 of 2008.
2. The father of the Respondent was working as a Home guard and after he died in harness, the Respondent applied for compassionate appointment. The concerned Committee recommended the Respondent and others whereafter the order dated 20.11.1985 was issued by the Commandant, Bihar Home Guard forwarding the name of the Respondent as one of the persons shortlisted for appointment on compassionate basis. The appointment was conditional upon physical fitness certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon and it was made clear that appointment of the enlisted persons will be effective only after due satisfaction of their capability, educational qualification etc.
3. The recommended persons appeared in the Home Guard Headquarter as directed, but the Respondent was denied appointment as he was found deficient in the physical standards. Thus aggrieved, the Respondent moved and obtained relief from the Patna High Court for appointment in Class IV post. As the Respondent was shortlisted for the post of Adhinayak Lipik, he challenged the High Court order through SLP(C) No. 6437 of 1993. The resultant Civil Appeal No. 220 of 1996 was allowed by the Supreme Court with the following direction:
....We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct the Respondents to appoint the Appellant to the post of 'Adhinayak Lipik' in the Homeguard Department, State of Bihar within one month from the date of communication of this order.
4. Following the above direction of the Supreme Court, the Respondent was appointed on 27.2.1996 by the order No. 108 of 1996 dated 10.2.1996 issued by the Commandant of the Bihar Home Guard Bn., Patna. Six years after joining service, an application was made on 10.9.2002 by the Respondent claiming seniority from 5.12.1985 but the authorities rejected the claim on 20.11.2002 on the ground that the Respondent was appointed on 27.2.1996 on direction of the Supreme Court and that he was not borne in service as on 5.12.1985. The rejection order was then challenged and the Patna High Court in the Respondent's CWJC No. 6683/2003 directed the authority to consider the Respondent's seniority from 5.12.1985.
5. The above order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State and the Division Bench on 29.9.2008 while dismissing the LPA No. 245 of 2008 noted that the Respondent was denied appointment, (as proposed on 20.11.1985), on the ground that he did not conform to the physical standards applicable to a Constable and eventually the Supreme Court directed appointment of the Respondent as Adhinayak Lipik in the Home Guard Department. Therefore, the appointment should relate back to the date of the initial order on 20.11.1985. With this observation, the State's LPA was dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The Respondent is represented by Mr. Satvik Misra, learned Counsel.
7. The issue to be answered here is whether the Respondent is entitled to claim seniority in service from a retrospective date i.e. 20.11.1985 as was ordered by the High Court or whether he is en........