Ram Pravesh Singh v. The State of Bihar

6. Ram Pravesh Singh S/o Sri Dwarika Pd. Singh resident of village- Gagankura, P.O. Noama, P.S. Sakurabad, District-Jehanabad.

7. Surya Prakash Gupta, S/O Sri Hira Saw, resident of village-Vela, P.O. Lahsuna, P.S. Masaudhi, Distt. Patna.

8. Uma Nath Chauhan, S/O Sri Rameshwar Pd. Chouhan, resident of Jamuanwa (Beldari) P.O. Tungri (Chaghar) P.S. Baijirganj, District- Gaya.

9. Umesh Pd. Sharma, S/O Sri Bharat Singh resident of village+P.O.+P.S. Pandarak, Distt. Patna.

10. Md. Akhatar, S/O late Md. Hassan Ali, Raghopur, District-Vaishali. … … Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Shashi Shekhar Sharma, Secretary to Govt. in the department of Public Health Engineering Bisheshwariay Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Sri Madan Kumar Engineer-in-Chief –cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering department Bisheshwariaya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Sri Surendra Kumar Chief Engineer (Mechanical) P.H.E.D., Bisheshwariaya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. Mr. A.K.Sinha the Superintending Engineer, P.H.E. Circle, Patna, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna.

6. Mr. Gopal Prasad, the Executive Engineer, P.H.E. Division, Patna. East Patna. … … Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Lallan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-II ---------- - 2 - P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 10th November, 2008. By means of this contempt application (M.J.C.) the petitioners have alleged that the order dated 13th July, 2006 passed by this Court in batch of the petitions has not been complied with.

2. Paragraph 13 of the order dated 13th July, 2006, of which contempt is alleged, reads thus: - “From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is quite apparent that the law with regard to the matter in dispute is already settled and the authorities concerned are duty bound to deal with all such matters as per the law and spirit of the said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and all the decisions of any Court, running contrary thereto, shall have no effect in the said matter. hence, the State of Bihar is directed to immediately take steps to constitute a committee of three high officials concerned, presided by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar and also including the Engineer in Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department to consider the cases of all the petitioners after giving them opportunity to place their respective claims and to decide the matters in issue afresh in accordance with the directions given in aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) and the law settled therein with respect to the various schemes of the State Government concerning such appointments and regularization. The State Government is further directed to take steps for appointment of such Committee preferably within a period of one month from the date of this order so that the said Committee may be able to decide the entire matters by 30th September, 2006 as it has been stated on behalf of the State Government on 10.5.2006 that the case of the petitioners who are fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the policy will also be considered and finalized on or before 30th September, 2006. The petitioners will be at liberty to move the said Committee after it is appointed by the State Government raising their grievances in accordance with law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court.” - 3 -

3. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents in the contempt application, show cause has been filed by respondent no.6. It has been stated therein that as per the policy decision, petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for regularization on sanctioned/vacant post in P.H. Division, Patna East and as such representation for regularization stood rejected by a reasoned order dated 6th February, 2007.

4. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent no.6 and sought to set-up the case that the representation made by the petitioners has been arbitrarily rejected inasmuch as the daily wagers, junior to petitioners have been regularized, while the claim of the petitioners have been negated.

5. In the light of the rejoinder, a supplementary show- cause has been filed by respondent no.6 giving out the details of the policy decision based on which petitioners representation came to be rejected. In paragraphs 3 to 10 of the supplementary show-cause, following averments have been made: - 3 That it is submitted that in the list of Hon’ble Court’s orders dated 13.07.2006 passed in C.W.J.C.No.7359 of 2002 (Ram Tapeshwar Sah and others- Versus- the State of Bihar and others) alongwith one hundred sixty four analogous cases, the three Member Committee presided by the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar has been constituted vide office order no.262 dated 10.08.2006 (Annexure-A to the main show-cause.

4. That it will be relevant to mention herein that the and Administrative Reforms Department, personnel Government of Bihar in continuation to the resolution no.489 dated 10.05.2005 has taken a policy decision regarding against absorption/appointment sanctioned/vacant posts through resolution no.639 dated 16.03.2006 and as such the Committee presided by the wagers - 4 - Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar has been constituted through order bearing no.142 dated 25.07.2006 (Annexure-B series to the main show-cause).

5. That it is further submitted that the Committee so constituted in light of the aforementioned Hon’ble Court’s orders have considered afresh the cases of all the petitioners after giving them opportunity to place their respective claims in accordance with the directions given in aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) and the law settled therein with respect to various schemes of the State Government concerning such appointments and regularization

6. That it is further humbly stated and submitted that this respondent department made repeated and sincere efforts for last few years and as a result during august,2006, two thousand two hundred and seventy seven 92277) technical posts of Class-IV have been sanctioned to this department and as per the policy/directions contained in resolution no.639 dated 16.03.2006 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna, this respondent department initiated necessary actions those persons on in their respective Public Health sanctioned/vacant posts Divisions who have been reverted/terminated but they arte engaged or have been engaged two hundred and forty days (244) days prior to 11.12.1990 and have continued working continuously at least for five (5) years (two hundred forty days each year). the services of to regularize

7. That it is submitted that due to some error committed in narration of the aforementioned eligibility criteria for regularization as per the policy decision of the State Government many of the petitioners had earlier been found not eligible for absorption under Regular Establishment and for that reasoned order dated 06.02.2007 has been issued (Annexure-c to the main show-cause).

8. That it is submitted that this error was detected while hearing of some other similar matters in the Hon’ble Court, as such in the light of the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 01.05.2007 passed in M.J.C.No.1030 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar Pandey and others-Versus- The State of Bihar and others) all such matters under different public Health Divisions of this department were re-examined and reconsidered by the Committee. This matter has also been reconsidered on the basis of joint seniority list prepared for the eligible persons either working or had worked but were removed before and the persons found eligible under - 5 - Public Health Divisions, Patna Each for being adjusted under regular establishment by the Committee vie memo no.787 dated 26.10.2007(Annexure-4 to the rejoinder petition).

9. That it is submitted that in Resolution no.639 dated16.03.2006 of the personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar at paragraph no.3 (i) the basis fixing up the security of the eligible candidates are clearly mentioned, according to which the `date of Birth’ of the eligible persons the basis for their seniority and as such on the basis of the records received from the respective public Health Divisions of this department, seniority list for a particular Public Health Division had been decided and under the guidelines of Government have been considered for the purpose of benefit of the said decision for regularization on sanctioned/vacant posts of respective public Health Divisions in consonance with the Government’s reservation policy and appointment procedures by absorption contained in resolution no.639 dated 16.03.2006 of the Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar and also in the light of the observation and directions made by the Hon’ble Court on 01.05.2007 in M.J.C No.1030 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar pandey) and others-Versus. The State of Bihar and others).

10. That with regard to the averment made in paragraph no.4 of the reply petition it is submitted that all the persons named therein are all senior to the petitioner as per their date of birth as is evident from the seniority list as stated in earlier paragraph of this show-cause.”

6. Having minutely scanned the show-cause and the supplementary show-cause, we are satisfied that the order dated 13th July, 2006 cannot be said to have been willfully disobeyed or deliberately not complied with.

7. The counsel sought to submit that the policy of regularizing the daily wagers on the basis of date of birth is contrary to the undertaking given by the respondents before this Court. In this connection, he sought to place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, 2006(3) PLJR 226. - 6 -

8. The Supreme Court has in the aforesaid decision exposited the position with regard to civil contempt, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, that under the Contempt of Courts Act, action is contemplated in respect of two categories; (a) willful disobedience to a process of Court and (b) willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, there is neither breach of any of the process or order of the Court nor breach of any undertaking given to the Court.

9. No action in the contempt application needs to be taken against the respondents. M.J.C. is rejected accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-