Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1174 (PAT)

Paropkari Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-27

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner herein seeks the relief of regularisation of his services as Black Smith in the Central Jail, Buxar, where he is stated to be working since 20.9.1986. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure 1 to submit that on the retirement of the earlier incumbent on the post of Black Smith on 28.2.1985 the Jailor, Central Prison, Buxar sought approval of Inspector General of Prison, Bihar, Patna for appointment of the petitioner on daily wages before issuance of Annexure 2. Submission is that thereafter the petitioner was also issued an interview letter requiring him to present himself for selection in June 1988 by Annexure 5 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner now for over nearly 18 years has continued to function as Black Smith on daily wages. 4. Learned Counsel for the State does not dispute the position that the post of Black Smith in the Central Jail, Buxar is a sanctioned post. Learned Counsel however seeks to submit that the petitioner has not worked continuously but with short intermittent breaks as is sought to be contended in the counter affidavit. However the factum of appointment of the petitioner on daily wage and his continuance, less the breaks as alleged, is not disputed. 5. This Court finds that the appointment of the petitioner on daily wages cannot ex facie be stated to be illegal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the Inspector General of Prison was the competent authority to grant such sanction. Quite obviously the respondents cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of harassment towards the petitioner in having utilised his services at their convenience. Time having come to give the petitioner status of regular employment with consequential benefits, the respondents cannot be permitted to now resile from their initial position and urge grounds with the intention to deny certain additional benefits to the petitioner which would accrue by regularisation. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004(3) PLJR 141. This Court in para 16 of the said judgment has clearly expressed its resentment that the manner of working of the respondents where they seek to deny benefits more particularly to the inferior employee. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004(3) PLJR 141. This Court in para 16 of the said judgment has clearly expressed its resentment that the manner of working of the respondents where they seek to deny benefits more particularly to the inferior employee. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court considers it appropriate to direct that the respondents be required to take a decision with regard to regularisation of the services of the petitioner. While making such consideration the respondents would be required to keep in view the fact that today the petitioner would clearly be overage for any government service. Any decision to his prejudice would land him and his family on the street. Liability for this would exclusively lie with the respondents. Let the respondents do so within a period of three months from today. Should the respondents chose to pass an order prejudicial to the petitioner the order must be reasoned and speaking in nature so as to facilitate judicial review of the same. 8. This application accordingly standf allowed.