Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4446 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Prabhans Ram S/O Ram Ugra Mallah, Resident Of Village- Jamalpur, P.S And P.O- Aandar, Distt- Siwan. 2. Birendra Upadhayay S/O Late Shyam Bihari Upadhaya, Resident Of Village- Kadwan (Jaggannath Tola), P.S- Maudiha, P.S- Nokha, Distt- Rohas. 3. Suresh Singh Yadav S/O Late Banshi Yadav Resident Of Village- Gobardhanpur, P.O- Gangwali, P.S- Akodhi Gola, Distt- Rohtas 4. Sriram Singh S/O Late Vasant Singh Resident Of Village- Maheshdih, P.O And P.S- Tarari, Distt- Bhojpur. 5. Laxman Ram S/O Bhagwan Ram Resident Of Vill- Kheksi, P .O- Mahila, P.S- Itadhi, Distt- Buxar. 6. Banarasi Mahto S/O Late Shivnandan Mahto Resident Of Vill- Ishopur, P.O And P.S- Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna. 7. Kaushal Kishore Mishra S/O Late Newati Mishra Resident Of Vill- Kartar Wajitpur, P.O And P.S- Wajitpur, Distt- Vaishali. 8. Bireshwar Pd. Singh S/O Maheshwari Prasad Singh Resident Of Vill- Silaut (Bishunpur Jaynarayan), P.O- Silaut, P.S- Maniyari, Distt- Muzaffarpur. 9. Rajeshwar Paswan S/O Late Phaguni Paswan Resident Of Vill- Dhankaul, P.O- Nayatol, P.S- Nanpur, Distt- Sitamarhi. 10. Surendra Prasad S/O Ram Narayan Prasad Resident Of Vill And P.O- Jafarpur, P.S- Belsand, Distt- Sitamarhi. 11. Harikesh Kumar S/O Narwadeshwar Mishra Resident Of Vill- Silaut (Bishunpur Jaynarayan), P.O- Silaut, P.S- Maniyari, Distt- Muzaffarpur. 12. Jagannath Razak S/O Late Asarfi Razak Resident Of Vill- Bhikanpura,
Legal Reasoning
P.O- Matauliya, P.S- Desri, Distt- Vaishali. 13. Ram Swarth Singh S/O Late Ram Chandra Singh Resident Of Vill- Banwak, P.O- Basuhar, P.S- Punpun, Distt- Patna. 14. Dinesh Ram S/O Late Manohar Ram Resident Of Vill- Gandhar Matha, P.O- Bandhuganj, P.S- Ghosi, Distt- Jehanabad. 15. Satyendra Kumar Singh S/O Late Paramanand Singh Resident Of Vill- Piripar, P.O- Makarauta, P.S- Karari Pasurai, Distt- Nalanda. 16. Sudarshan Mishra S/O Late Tarani Mishra Resident Of Vill. And P.O- Bangaon, P.S- Bangaon, Distt- Saharsa. 17. Vinod Kumar S/O Late Surya Thakur Resident Of Vill- Saraut, P.O- Bhag, P.S- Gangpur Siswan, Distt- Siwan. 18. Indrajeet Paswan S/O Bakhori Paswan Resident Of Vill- Rani Sarai, P.O And P.S- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt- Patna. 19. Shaukat Ali S/O Mostakim Miyan Resident Of Vill And P.O- Panchlakh, P.S- Paran, Distt- Chapra. 20. Arjun Pd. Singh S/O Late Amerika Singh Resident Of Vill- Jai Kishun Bigaha, P.O- Chandi Mod, P.S- Silao, Distt- Nalanda. 21. Ajeet Pd. Shahi S/O Late Ram Prasad Shahi Resident Of Vill- Annat, Kamtaul, P.O And P.S- Kamtaul, Distt- Muzaffarpur. 22. Rajnandan Prasad S/O Late Dhathura Ram Resident Of Vill- Mishraulia, P.O- Sarta, P.S- Paras Bigha, Distt- Jehanabad. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s Patna High Court CWJC No.4446 of 2013 (2) dt.20-03-2013 2/5 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel And Administrative Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar State Water Board, Patna, Through Its Secretary, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Water Board, Patna. 7. The Chief Engineer, Ganga Project, Bihar State Water Board, Patna. 8. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Water Board, Ganga Project Division, No. 1, S.T.P. Saiyadpur, Patna. 9. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Water Board, Ganga Project Division No. 3, Bhagalpur. 10. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Water Board, Ganga Project Division No.5, Patna. 11. The Union Of India, Through The Director, Ganga Project Directorate, New Delhi. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Mr. Siddhartha Harsh, Mr. Gopal Swaroop Dubey, Mr. Brajesh Mishra, Mr. Ashok Garg, & Mr. Yogendra Dwivedi, Advocates. For the Respondent no. 1 to 4: Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to GP 14 For Respondent No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 20-03-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs enumerated in
Decision
paragraph-1 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- (i) “1. That the instant writ petition is being preferred invoking the equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the grant of the following Reliefs: issuance appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ in the the nature respondent authorities to discharge their legal of mandamus commanding For an of Patna High Court CWJC No.4446 of 2013 (2) dt.20-03-2013 3/5 obligation and to regularize the service of the petitioners who have been working on daily wages in various divisions of the Ganga Project under the Bihar State Water Board (respondent no.5) for the last several years (more than 25 years approx.); For appropriate writ/order/ direction including a writ in the nature the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioners on the sanctioned vacant posts lying vacant, after the regularization of their service; of mandamus commanding issuance an of For grant of such other relief/ reliefs as the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” (ii) (iii) Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are working for more than 25 years on daily wage basis under the respondent Bihar State Water Board, Patna, and though the petitioners submitted their representations for regularization of their services in view of the policy decision of the respondent State, as contained in Annexure- 2 to the writ petition, but till date on one pretext or other, neither their valid grievances have been redressed by the authorities concerned, nor their representations have been rejected. It is highlighted that in view of the policy decision of the State Government, as contained in Annexure-2 and 3, the respondents are obliged to consider their claim for regularization in service. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 as also respondent no. 5 and 6 though have opposed the prayer made in the present writ petition, but have fairly submitted that if the petitioners file their representations separately with supporting documents, then that shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law by bearing in mind the law laid Patna High Court CWJC No.4446 of 2013 (2) dt.20-03-2013 4/5 down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also other materials produced by the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order. After having heard the parties and in view of the nature of claims raised in the present proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this matter pending any longer before this Court. However, the interest of justice would be sub- served if the petitioners are granted liberty to file their detailed representations separately before the respondent no.6 with all supporting documents raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding. It is ordered accordingly. If such representations are filed by each of the petitioners before the respondent no.6 within a period of one month from today with all supporting documents, then he and/or any other competent authority of the respondent State of Bihar shall be obliged to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. It goes without saying that while considering the claims raised on behalf of the petitioners respondent no.6 and/or any other competent authority of the respondent State shall be obliged to take into consideration the judicial pronouncements made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnatka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], particularly paragraphs 43 and 53 as also the other materials including the Government resolution, as contained in Annexures- 2and 3. The respondent no. 6 and/or any other competent authority are obliged to undertake only one time exercise with respect to the claims of the petitioners and similarly situated other daily wage employees within a maximum period of Patna High Court CWJC No.4446 of 2013 (2) dt.20-03-2013 5/5 six months from the date of filing of the representations by each of the petitioners, if not already undertaken by them in light of judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi(3) (Supra). The present application stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)