Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1095 (PAT)

Lakhan Lal Giri Goswamy v. State Of Bihar

2004-10-11

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 18.3.1998 passed by the respondent Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, as contained in annexure 1, whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and his services have been terminated. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2278 of 1996 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to regularise his services on the post of jeep driver. 4. The writ application aforesaid was disposed of vide order, as contained in annexure 7, where the authorities were directed to take a decision about regularisation of the petitioner. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, as contained in annexure 7, the petitioner represented his case before the authorities for his regularisation, which was considered by the authorities and instead of regularising his services, they have terminated him by the impugned order on the ground that persons appointed after 21.10.1984 in the Work Charged Establishment cannot be regularised as per Circular No. 5074 dated 20th September, 1990. 5. It is, further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that one similarly situated person, Ramashish Yadav, has been retained in services as jeep driver, whereas the petitioner has been terminated. 6. From annexure 1, it appears that the authorities had considered the case of the petitioner for his regularisation and in view of Finance Department Circular No. 5074 dated 20th September, 1990, it was held that since the petitioner is an appointee after 21.10.1984 he is not entitled for his regularisation. It further appears that the petitioner was engaged in Work Charged Establishment with effect from 1st February, 1991, much after cut off date i.e. 21.10.1984. At the same time, it does not appear to be a case that persons engaged subsequent to the cut off date like the petitioner have been retained in services and the petitioner alone has been terminated. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that in view of Finance Department Circular No. 5074 dated 20th September, 1990, as referred to above, persons engaged in Work Charged Establishment were not entitled to be regularised and, accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered and he has been terminated. 8. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that in view of Finance Department Circular No. 5074 dated 20th September, 1990, as referred to above, persons engaged in Work Charged Establishment were not entitled to be regularised and, accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered and he has been terminated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, tried to impress upon the Court that the circular of the Finance Department aforesaid has been superseded by other circular, as contained in annexure 11. 9. On reading off annexure 11, it does not appear that effect of Circular No. 5074 dated 20th September, 1990, as referred to above, has been taken away or superseded. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere in the matter. 11. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. However, a liberty is given to the petitioner to represent his case, if persons engaged after 21.10.1984 have been retained and at that time, the petitioner may also take the question of law, if any.