R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) ON the basis of the judgment passed in Letter Patent Appeal No. 157 of 1991 (R) on 4.4.1995, and on the basis of conduct of the respondents, the petitioner in this writ petition, seeks a declaration that he is a regular employee from the date of the said judgment i.e. April 1995 and be paid salary, etc. accordingly.
(2.) THE petitioner was charge -sheeted in the year 1985 and in a departmental proceeding he was found guilty and accordingly was dismissed on 4.6.1986. The appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected. The petitioner moved the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna and proceeding for conciliation was allegedly taken. It appears that the petitioner offered to forego his back wages and withdraw the proceeding before the Deputy Labour Commissioner if he is employed again. By order dated 14.9.1988 the petitioner was re -engaged on the same terms and conditions without any salary for the intervening period. There was another disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that his re - employment on 14.9.1988 being a fresh appointment, no action could be taken against him for any alleged incident prior to 14.9.1988. However, he was dismissed on 15.2.1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner, against the said order having been dismissed on 19.8.1989, he filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 1844 of 1989 (R).
(3.) BY a judgment dated 2.5.1391, passed in the said writ petition, this Court held that as the petitioner was re -employed in service, the question of initiation of any departmental proceeding for misconduct during a period prior thereto does not arise; that though he was appointed afresh, the order of his dismissal dated 4.6.1986 remains operative, as the same was not set aside by a competent authority; that the petitioner was merely appointed as a casual bus conductor; that the petitioner was found guilty of serious misconduct into two proceedings and therefore petitioner should not be directed to be re -instated in service with full back wages. It is important to note here that from reading of paragraphs 3 and 28 of the said judgment, it is clear that the Court held that the petitioner was merely appointed as a casual bus conductor. However this Court held him entitled to 3.33 years ' of the wages last drawn by him.;