Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

and the same was ultimately disposed of on 12.5.2011 with certain direction for consideration by a Committee of the State Government. The grievance of the petitioner respondents on 4.12.2012 have illegally passed an order rejecting the case of regularisation of the petitioner. In this regard, he has also submitted that the departmental Secretary while passing the impugned order dated 12.5.2011 has failed to consider his case in true perspective and as such, the aforesaid impugned order passed by him should be quashed and the matter should be remitted to the Committee.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner was appointed by way of a stop gap arrangement on 15.11.1994 and his service had been terminated way back on 31.12.1996 and therefore no direction for regularising his service can now be issued after nearly eighteen years of his removal from service. He has also submitted that the petitioner can also get no benefit of an interim order passed on

20.5.1997 in CWJC No. 3261of 1997 wherein only status quo was directed to be maintained. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner’s services had already been terminated on

31.12.1996 and thus the order of status quo passed on 20.5.1997, therefore, would only mean that he was to remain as a terminated Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 3 employee. It is in this regard that he has also placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 12.5.2011 wherein the writ application of the petitioner was disposed of with other cases. He has submitted that the direction for consideration by six men committee of this Court was only in respect of the working employees and not in respect of the terminated employee. According to the learned counsel for the State, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the departmental secretary on

4.12.2012.

In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no two opinion that the petitioner’s services was terminated on

31.12.1996. His writ application, CWJC No. 3261 of 1997 assailing his order of termination was disposed of by an order dated 12.5.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “In batch of these writ applications, the grievance raised by the individual petitioner was with regard to his regularization in service. Initially all the petitioners were engaged on daily wages in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and some of them were also taken in the Work Charge Establishment on the prescribed pay scale. The authorities had later on found that as there was a complete ban after 25.07.1984 for bringing anyone from daily wage to Work Charge Establishment, such order of shifting to Work Charge Establishment was canceled and led to filing of these writ petitions. It is not in doubt that subsequently the Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 4 respondents had considered the case of regularization by constituting a three men committee and on the evaluation of the service record as also after following a uniform criteria, a number of such daily wage employees were taken back in the Work Charge Establishment.

The rest of the people who did not succeed in the selection made by the Three Men Committee, had also represented their case before the State Government and the State Government had once again constituted a fresh committee where the cases of such daily wage employees are still said to be pending. In view of the fact that one of such committee was constituted by order of the Principal Secretary of the PHED dated 04.08.2010, this court would find that such of the petitioners whose services had yet been continued on daily wages and are still working, would be entitled consideration regularization of their service in work charge / regular establishment by the aforementioned Six Men Committee. That being so, this Court would give liberty to such petitioners continuing on daily wages whose services have not yet been brought in the work charge establishment to approach the Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D. filing individual representation through proper channel within a period of three months from the date of receipt and / or production of a copy of this order and the Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D. Thereafter Will get their cases examined by Six Men Committee where after he will take his final decision in next six months from the date of filing of their representation.

It is made clear that the petitioners whose services have yet not been brought in the work charge establishment and are still continuing on daily wages in view of the interim orders passed in these cases shall not be disengaged from their such daily wages work till their Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 5 cases are examined by the Six Men Committee constituted by Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D. vide his order dated

4.8.2010 and a final decision thereafter taken thereon by the Principal Secretary, P.H.E.D. It is also clarified that such of the petitioner whose services have been brought in the work charge establishment and / or regularized during the pendency of their respective writ applications will require no further consideration and will also not be reopened.”

As would be apparent, this Court had given no relief as with regard to regularisation of service to petitioner because his services had already been terminated. In that background, the representation filed by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary on

25.7.2011 vide Annexure-9 the writ application seeking regularisation after his reinstatement in service was itself misconceived. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by the Principal Secretary in a very elaborate manner and the reasoning given by him are quite sanguine and would require no interference inasmuch as the relevant portion of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- “CWJC No. 3261/97 ;ksxsUnz izlkn cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU; fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa fnukad& 12-05-2011 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn ds laca/k esa ikfjr vkns’k dk operative portion fuEu gS %&

Mr. Khursid Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3261 of 1997 has additionally submitted that despite their being a finding in favour of the petitioner, Yogendra Prasad that his engagement Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 6 on daily wage was in accordance with law and he had also discharged his duties, his payment of salary for the work already done by him has not been made till today. In this regard, it has been stated that even when the bills were also prepared and presented by the competent authority for payment of salary of the petitioner Yogendra Prasad, its consequential payment has not been tendered to him as yet. In the considered opinion of this Court such grievance of petitioner yogendra Prasad is a individual cause of action and accordingly this court would give him liberty to him of the file his self contained representation be four the Principal Se4cretary, PHED as with regard to his non-payment of his salary for the admitted work done by him. In the event such a representation is filed by the petitioner, Yogendra Prasad, the same shall be considered and disposed of at an early date by the Principal Secretary, PHED and if it is found that the petitioner Yogendra Prasad has worked in the relevant period his payment of salary on daily wages would also be made to him for the admitted period of his working. Such an exercise as with regard to taking a decision on the claim of salary and the consequential payment to petitioner Yogendra Prasad also must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 7 order

mDr ikfjr vkns’k sa mijkUr Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn }kjk ,d vH;kosnu fn;k x;k] ftles eq[; :I ls muds }kjk ;g vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa mUgsa lsok esa okil ysrs gq;s osru Hkqxrku fd;k tk; A Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq fnukad 16-09-2011 dks cqyk;k x;k A Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn mDr frfFk dks mifLFkr gq;s rFkk muds }kjk ,d vkosnu fn;k x;k ftlds lkFk fnukad 25-07-2011 dks muds }kjkfn;s x;s vH;kosnu dh izfr layXu dh xbZ gS A 3- v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k vapy] iVuk dks Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn dh fu; qfDr@ lek; kstu ls lacaf/kr dkxtkrksa @ vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk bl laca/k esa izfrosnu lefiZr djus dk funs’k fn;k x;k A v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k vapy] iVuk us vius i=kad 712 fnukad 11-06-2012 }kjk izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k rFkk dkxtkr Hkh miyC/k djk;s A muds }kjk ckn esa i=kad 1043 fnukad 22-08-2012 ds }kjk Jh izlkn ds cdk;s osru Hkqxrku ds laca/k esa izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k A 4- Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s dkxtkrksa rFkk v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k vapy] iVuk }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s dkxtkrksa rFkk lefiZr fd;s x;s izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij oLrqfLFkfr fuEu izdkj ikbZ xbZ %& Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn] xzke& oa’kh foxgk] ftyk& ukyUnk dks v/kkh{k.k vfHk;ark] yksd LokLF; vfHk;a=.k vapy] iVuk ds vkns’k la[;k 85 fnukad 15-11-1994 }kjk pijklh d in ij dk; Zdkjh O;oLFkk vUrxZr fcYdqy vkSicaf/kd :I ls fu; qDr fd;k x;k A ckn esa v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark ds dk; kZy; vkns’k 238 fnukad 31-12-1996 ds }kjk vU; dfeZ;ksa ds lkFk Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn dh lsok Hkh lekIr dj nh xbZ A mDr vkns’k ds fo:) Jh ;ksxsUnz izlkn }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk esa ,d ;kfpdk CWJC No.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that since the certain deductions were made from salary of the petitioner on the head of provident fund, at least that amount should be directed to be refunded. The Principal Secretary in the aforesaid impugned order, however, has clearly held that the amount of salary admissible to the petitioner for the period he had continued in service of the petitioner, i.e. 15.11.1994

31.12.1996 has already been paid to him. Therefore, all that this Patna High Court CWJC No.3970 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2013 9 Court can, now in view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, observe is that if any amount from the salary of the petitioner was deducted towards the provident fund and the same has not been refunded to the petitioner as yet, that amount should be given back to the petitioner. If the petitioner would file his representation confined only to the payment of his deducted amount of provident fund from the salary, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order to be enclosed with the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. It also goes without saying that if any amount is also found payable to the petitioner on the head of provident fund, the same also must be paid to him in next one month from the date of the order of the competent authority.