Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1190 (PAT)

Kishori Prasad Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2004-12-01

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard Mr.Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and J.C. to Government Pleader No. II for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularise their services on class IV posts as they are working on daily wages in different Forest Ranges under the Forest Extension Division, Saran, Chapra with effect from 1982 and onwards. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged to work for plantation works in the Forest Extension Division, Saran right from 1982 and they are continuing on daily wages. Subsequently, the authorities prepared a panel of such daily wages persons where names of the petitioners were also included and the panel was published in the year, 1996. It is further submitted by learned counsel that till date the petitioners are working as daily rated workers but their cases are not being considered for their regularisation on the suitable class IV posts despite several directions issued by the State authorities. 4. In this connection, reference has been made to Annexure-2, a letter issued by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder direction was issued to all concerned to consider the cases of daily rated workers for their regularisation on class IV posts. In the aforesaid letter, references have been made to the concurrence of the Finance Department and also of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna but the authorities are not acting upon such directions issued by the State authorities. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioners are working as daily rated labourers and they are getting their wages. 6. The claims of the petitioners that they are working since 1982 and onwards, however, are not being disputed by the respondents-authorities nor there is denial of the fact that a panel was prepared of such persons including the petitioners in the year, 1996. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioners and similarly situated persons are being acknowledged as daily rated workers. However, the panel prepared by the authorities is not being exhausted for filling up class 1V posts from amongst the eligible candidates. 8. 7. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioners and similarly situated persons are being acknowledged as daily rated workers. However, the panel prepared by the authorities is not being exhausted for filling up class 1V posts from amongst the eligible candidates. 8. At the face of the direction as contained in Annexure-2, as referred to above, in my opinion, the authorities were required to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularisation subject to availability of class IV posts. 9. From pleadings of the parties, it further appears to me that works rendered by the petitioners are perennial in nature as they are being engaged right from 1982 and till date works are being taken from them. 10. Keeping in view all these aspects of the matter, respondents-authorities are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and similarly situated persons for their regularisation on class lV posts in regular establishment within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this application is disposed of.