Krishna Rai Son Of Late Chamru Rai v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

this writ application has prayed for retrospective confirmation of his service from the date of his joining i.e. 13.7.1984, it has to be held that such prayer in the facts and circumstances of this case is wholly misconceived. From the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 21.5.2009 it would be evident that for the first time made the petitioner was made entitled to benefits of a regular Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 2 employee. The earlier services rendered by the petitioner on daily wages therefore in no view of the matter would qualify for his confirmation because the petitioner while being engaged and continued on daily wages cannot be said to be holding a permanent post on substantive basis which is a condition precedent for being confirmed in service. The entry of a person in a cadre on a substantive appointment is only by way of regular employee and therefore, if by considering past services as a daily wager the petitioner was appointed on 21.5.2009 on the post of Peon in Group ‘D’ services with the following stipulation made in the order:- ^^dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds ladYi la[;k&639 fnukad 16-3-2006 ,oa i=kad 851 fnukad 14-2-2008 esa fufgr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk esa muds uke ds lkeus vafdr frfFk ls nSfud ikfjJfed ij dk; Zjr fuEukafdr dfeZ;ksa dks vkns’kiky ds fjDr in ij osrueku osru cS.M :0 4440&7440 rFkk xzsM osru 1300@& …vkSicaf/kd iqujhf{kr osrueku‰ …:0 2550&55&2660&60&3200@& viqujhf{kr‰] ,oa ljdkj }kjk le;&le; ij Lohd‘r vuqekU; HkRrksa ds lkFk inxzg.k dh frfFk ls vLFkk;h :i ls fu; qDr fd;k tkrk gSS& dzekad uke ,oa irk vkj{k.k dksfV tUefrfFk nSfud osru ij dk;Z izkjEHk dh frfFk 13-7-1984 15-01-1966 fiNM+koxZ 1 2 3 Jh d‘".k jk; firk&Jh pe: jk; xzke&uFkqiqj Fkkuk&Qqyokjh’kjhQ ftyk&iVuk Jh jkek’kh"k flag firk&Jh n;k flag xzke&lcwjpd i=ky;&gkWlkMhg Fkkuk&elkS<+h ftyk&iVuk Jh ’kadj iafMr firk&Lo0 txr iafMr xzke$i=k0&uxoka Fkkuk&ukScriqj ftyk&iVuk 14-7-1984 16-01-1963 vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ 07-11-1984 03-02-1967 vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 3 2- budh fu; fer fu; qfDr dk vkns’k rRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxk rFkk nSfud osruHkksxh ds :i esa iwoZ esa dh x;h lsok dh x.kuk fdlh iz; kstu gsrq ugha dh tk, xhA 3- foRr foHkkxh; ladYi la[;k&1964 fnukad 31-08-2005 ds vkyksd esa bu ij ^^fcgkj ljdkjh deZpkjh va’knk;h isa’ku ;kstuk&2005** izHkkoh gksxhA 4- fu; fer fu; qfDr fcYdqy vLFkk;h gksxh vkSj fdlh Hkh le; fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds budh lsok lekIr dh tk ldsxhA 5- ;g vkns’k fdlh vU; nSfud osruHkksxh ds ekeys esa iwoksZ}j.k ugha gksxkA g0@& …jktho ykspu‰ ljdkj ds fo’ks"k lfpo Kkikad&4@LFkk0&1063@90&dk0& iVuk] fnukad 21-05-09 izfrfyfi& Jh d‘".k jk;] Jh jkek’kh"k flag ,oa Jh ’kadj iafMr dks sf"krA lwpuk ,oa vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq iz 2- lacaf/kr rhuksa nSfud osruHkkxh dehZ fuEufyf[kr dkxtkr ds lkFk fo’ks"k lfpo] dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds le{k ;ksxnku djsaxs& (i) vlSfud ’kY; fpfdRld&lg&eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr LokLF; izek.k i= …ewy :i esa‰A (i) ’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] vk;q ls lacaf/kr ewy izek.k i= ,oa mldh nks vfHkizekf.kr izfrA (i) fryd&ngst ugha ysus nsus laca/kh ?kks"k.k i= …ewy :i esa‰A 3- mi; qZDr vafdr izek.k i=ksa ,oa ?kks"k.k i=ksa ds lkFk vkns’k fuxZr dh frfFk ls 15 …iUnzg‰ fnuksa ds vUnj dk; ZHkkj xzg.k dj ysaA fu/kkZfjr vof/k rd mi; qZDr vkSipkfjdrkvksa dk ikyu djrs gq, ;ksxnku ugha djus ij mudh fu; qfDr i= Lo% jn~n le>k tk, xkA* g0@& 21@5@09 ljdkj ds fo’ks"k lfpo** he cannot now after more than three years of his appointment having accepted the underlined portions of condition of his aforesaid appointment letter dated 21.5.2009 now turn around for claiming his retrospective confirmation w.e.f.

13.7.1984, the date on which he came be engaged only on daily wages. Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 4 Infact from a bare reading of his representation dated

29.8.2012 it would become clear that after the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment letter dated

21.5.2009 as a new entrant on the post of peon and was also confirmed on the said post of peon vide an order dated 19.6.2012 w.e.f. 21.5.2011 on completion of probation of a period two years, he became wiser and claimed his retrospective appointment on the post of peon w.e.f. 13.7.1984 the day on which he was actually engaged on daily wages. This aspect of the matter would stand clarified from his own representation (Annexure-5) which for sake clarity is quoted herein below:- ^^lsok esa] voj lfpo lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA fo"k;& vkns’kiky ds in ij fu; qfDr dh frfFk esa ifjorZu ds laca/k esA egksn;] mi; qZDr fo"k; ds lanHkZ esa lknj vuqjks/k djuk gS fd eSa dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk esa fnukad 13-07-1984 ls nSfud osru ij dk;Z dj jgk FkkA 1984 esa dkfeZd foHkkx ds la; qDr LFkkiuk ds v/khu gh eaf=eaMy lfpoky; foHkkx] lalnh; dk;Z foHkkx ,oa x‘g …vkj{kh‰ foHkkx dk Hkh LFkkiuk FkkA 1984 esa gekjs nSfud osru ij fu; qfDr ds i’pkr dkfeZd foHkkx ds la; qDr LFkkiuk ls gh eaf=eaMy lfpoky; ,oa leUo; foHkkx esa 1986 ,oa 1987 esa dqy 16 O;fDr;ksa dh fu; qfDr vkns’kiky ds in ij nSfud osru ij dh x;h ,oa iqu% vkns’k la[;k&41] fnukad 04-01-1986 ,oa vkns’k la[;k&4727] fnukad 05-10-87 …izfr layXu‰ }kjk bu nSfud Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 5 osru ij fu; qDr dfeZ;ksa dks fu; fer :i ls fu; qDr dj fn;k x;k] tcfd mlh la; qDr LFkkiuk esa] mi; qZDr fu; qDr nSfud dfeZ;ksa ls iwoZ ls] eSa fu; qDr Fkk] ijUrq eq>s fu; fer :i ls fu; qDr ugha fd;k x;kA ckn eas foHkkxh; vkns’k la[;k&91] fnukad 21-05-2009 …izfr layXu‰ }kjk eq>s LFkk;h :i ls fu; qDr fd;k x;k ,oa dk; kZy; vkns’k la[;k&210] fnukad 19-06-2012 }kjk gekjh lsok fnukad 21-05-2011 ls laiq"V dh x;hA afd esjs nSfud osru ij fu; qfDr ds i’pkr~ la; qDr LFkkiuk ls gh fu; qDr] eaf=eaMy lfpoky; ,oa leUo; foHkkx esa 1986&87 esa fu; qDr vkns’kikyksa dks 1986 ,oa 1987 esa gh fu; fer :i ls fu; qDr fd;k x;k gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd eq>s Hkh esjs nSfud osru ij fu; qfDr dh frfFk vFkkZr 13-07-1984 ls gh fu; qDr djus dh d‘ik dh tk;] rkfd eq>s vius ls duh; vkns’kikyks a es a ojh; rk dk ykHk fey ldsA fo’oklHkktu g0@& d‘".kk jk; lk0 iz0 fo0 29@08@12 vkns’kiky As a matter of fact the aforesaid representation of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority who on

21.12.2012 had communicated the section stating interalia:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkxA la[;k&4@fo0&4&104@2012 17603@lk0iz0] iVuk] fnukad 21-12-12 lsok esa] Jh d‘".kk jk;] dk; kZy; ifjpkjh lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx] eq[; lfpoky;] fcgkj] iVuk fo"k;& lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2005 ds rgr …vkbZ0Mh0 la[;k&5799‰ lwpuk miyC/k djkus ds laca/k esA Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 6 egk’k;] funs’kkuqlkj mi;q ZDr fo"k;d vkids vH;kosnu fnukad 26-11-2012 …vkbZ0 Mh0 la[;k&5799 fnukad 03-12-2012‰ ds laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd fnukad 29-08-2012 dks vkns’kiky ds in ij fu; qfDr dh frfFk esa ifjorZu laca/kh vuqjks/k dks fu; ekuqlkj vLohd‘r dj nh xbZ gSA g0@& voj lfpo&lg&yksd lwpuk inkf/kdkjh** It would thus become clear that while the petitioner before department had claimed retrospective appointment on the post of peon, he has very clearly and conviently made a prayer for confirmation of his service w.e.f. 13.7.1984 on the basis of daily wages engagement. That however is simply not permissible in law because confirmation cannot be made only w.e.f. completion of probation in case of fresh appointment and in the case of the petitioner his date of appointment on the post of peon on substantive basis is 21.5.2009 and therefore his confirmation in government service in terms of appointment letter can be made only on expiry of a period of two years i.e. on or after 21.5.2011 and that has already been done by the department vide an order dated 19.06.2012 as has been also admitted by him in his aforesaid representation. The instances cited by him would also be of no avail inasmuch as from perusal of the order dated 4.1.1986, and

5.10.1987 (Annexure-2 series) read with the seniority list dated Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2013 (2) dt.04-03-2013 7

18.12.2012 it would be clear that no one has been given retrospective appointment on the post of clerk without retrospective date of their engagement on daily wages. Infact the others also had continued on daily wages for a using period where they too alike the petitioner was assaulted on the post of peon only with prospective effect. Thus for the reasons indicated above this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-