Mohammad Nasim v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA
Outcome
Dismissed
The application is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyank Deepak For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kr. Mishra Gp22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 27-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer in the application is to consider regularization on a Grade-IV post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as a daily wage on 5.6.1993 and has continued till 2003. Certain others appointed on daily wage have been recommended for absorption in 1995, 1997 and
Operative part
1998. More information under the Right to Information Act reveals that others were appointed between 1995-1997. The petitioner has filed representation to be regularized and which 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15021 of 2012 (2) dt.27-09-2012 may be directed to be disposed off. The Supreme Court (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi) at Paragraph-43 has held that daily wager holds no post and the question of considering any claim for regularization therefore does not arise. The one time direction for regularization contained in Paragraph-53 of the judgment was interpreted by the Courts to include the claim of daily wagers also. That has led to clarification by the Supreme Court in (2010) 3 SCC 115 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ganpathi Chaya Nayak) and (2010) 4 SCC 179 (Satya Prakash Vs. State of Bihar) that the question of considering daily wager for regularization in terms of Uma Devi (supra) at Paragraph-53 does not arise. Those regularized before the judgment find protection in the penultimate lines of Paragraph 53 itself. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.