Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 626 (PAT)

Mukhu Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-02

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Twofold prayers have been made on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of permanent Chaukidar of Bit No. Circle No. 9/2 in Gaurichak Police Station, Patna and secondly, to direct the authorities to pay the salary/wages to the petitioner for the period he has worked from 23.11.1992 to November, 2000. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the death of the father of the petitioner, he started working as Chowkidar in Gaurichak Police Station and he was duly recognised by the authorities as Chowkidar and by virtue of orders as contained in Annexures 2 and 3, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Chowkidar and yide order as contained in Annexure 4 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar, in pay scale of Rs. 750-940 by the Superintendent of Police, Patna vide order dated 23.11.1992 and since then he continued to work on the post of village Chowkidar and after November, 2000 he is not being allowed to sign the attendance register though work is being taken from him. 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. X appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of the show cause filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, submits that the petitioner was not appointed legally as the order of appointment was not approved by the Collector of the district who was the competent authority to do so. It is also submitted that after November, 2000 no work is being taken from him and in case the petitioner is working somewhere he is doing so at his own risk. In the show cause filed on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna however, it is admitted that the petitioner had worked as Chowkidar since 23.11.1992 to November, 2000. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, it is manifest that the petitioner somehow or the other, has worked on the post of Chowkidar since 23.11.1992 to November, 2000 and the petitioner has legitimate expectation on the basis of the recommendation of the order of appointment that his appointment will be approved by the Collector of the district as he worked under the respondents on the post of Chowkidar. Since the petitioner admittedly has worked under the respondents since 23.11.1992 to November, 2000, the concerned respondent authority is accountable for payment of due salary/wages to the petitioner permissible in law. 6. Under the circumstances, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna is directed to pay the due salary/wages to the petitioner in accordance with law for the period as referred to above if not already paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. So for the other grievance of the petitioner that in anticipation of the approval of the Collector he is reporting to duty but he is not being allowed to sign in attendance register is concerned, in my opinion, the petitioner may represent his case before the Collector of the district for necessary approval of his appointment on the post of Chowkidar and in case it is so done, the Collector, Patna, respondent no. 2 shall consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose it of in accordance" with law within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of.