Shashank Shekhar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.13707 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012 name was not included. Subsequently on 4.8.2010 he was informed that he had not submitted his objections within time. The two are contradictory stand. If the petitioner had worked, and for which he submitted evidence dated

31.12.1988 for 257 days and 6.5.1992 for 76 days, the fact that he may not have been paid for it cannot prejudice his consideration. The claims of the petitioner appear misconceived. Completion of 240 days may be a ground for challenge to an invalid order of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act but cannot be a ground to seek regularization as held in (2005) 5 SCC 100 (Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani) as follows:- “50. In law, 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence…….” In Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 it has been held at Paragraph 43 that daily wagers do not hold any post and the question of their regularization does not arise. That they are not entitled to the benefits of the observations in Paragraph-53 of the judgment as a one time measure for completion of 10 years of service has been explained in (2010) 3 SCC 115 and (2010) 4 SCC

If the petitioner worked voluntarily without any remuneration it militates against his claim for having worked 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.13707 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012 as a daily wage employee who is required to be paid daily wages. If he did not file objections to the panel within time prescribed there is no contradiction in the stand of the respondents. Whether it be the former reason or the latter reason, the fact is that for reasons explained his name does not figure in the panel. Needless to state that this cannot prejudice the consideration of the petitioner against any future Advertisement subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria otherwise. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)