ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard.
2. Petitioner filed this writ petition for payment of salary alleging that the salary has been stopped from March, 1992.
3. This writ petition was filed on 20th September, 2002 i.e. after about more than ten years.
4. Petitioner’s explanation for such a long delay is that during the said period of ten years, he was regularly reporting on his duty and was waiting for final outcome of the action taken against other similarly situated persons. It is further submitted that other similarly situated persons, who filed writ petition, have been allowed to join. It is further submitted that petitioner was not given proper opportunity to show-cause. As per the notice dated 19.4.2003 (Annexure A), show-cause could be filed within 15 days from the receipt thereof, but on 3.5.2003 i.e. on 14th day, order of termination of petitioners was passed.
5. Mr. Modi appearing for the State submitted that in August/September, 1991 it was detected that petitioner was appointed on the basis of fake sanction letter, and without following the process of appointment. Thereafter he left the work from September/October, 1991. He was paid his salary before he left. He denied that petitioner has been reporting for duty since then. He submitted that if petitioner was reporting on his duty but was not paid salary, he was expected to move the Courts of law within a reasonable time but this writ petition was filed after more than ten years. He also submitted that in any event in view of Rule 76 of the Bihar Service Code, if an employee is continuously absent from service for a period of five years, he ceases to be in the employment.
6. There is no explanation why the petitioner filed this writ petition after more than ten years. The purported explanation that he was reporting regularly since 1991 and was waiting without salary for the result of other cases, is not believable at all. Mr. Modi’s submission that petitioner left work from September/October 1991, when he learnt that action is sought to be taken against him for getting appointment on the basis of fake document; fits with the attending facts. This writ petition has been filed claiming salary since August/September 1991 and indirectly regularisation. The petitioner could not show that his appointment was on the basis of a genuine document and that he was appointed after following the due process. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in , Secy, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 (3) JCR 36 (SC), the cases in which orders have already been passed by the Courts for regularisation, are not to be reopened, but no further order can be passed allowing an illegal appointee to continue.
7. In such situation the show-cause notice and the order of termination dated 3.5.2003 are superfluous. It may also be noticed here that petitioner is silent as to when he received the said notice and when he filed his show-cause and therefore, his grievance of not affording proper opportunity to show-cause, is meaningless.
8. In the facts and circumstances notice above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, mainly on the ground of unexplained delay and laches of more than ten years. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.