Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 679 (PAT)

Basudeo Rai v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and JC to GP 8 for the respondents and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to regularise his services on the sanctioned post of office orderly in the office of respondent No. 5 and also for release of the arrears as well as current salary of the petitioner, which have been withheld from the date of his joining i.e. 18.11.1997 till date. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had shown exemplary courage in nabbing a criminal, wherefrom Rs. 87710.00 looted amount was recovered, he was appointed on temporary basis to work as a peon by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur vide letter, as contained in memo No. 709 dated 30th October, 1996. However, the petitioner was allowed to join the post on 18.11.1997. It is further submitted that till date the petitioner is working on officiating basis, but he is not being regularised nor his salary is being paid from the very inception of his career. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 wherein claims of the petitioner have been admitted. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the matter is pending Consideration before the higher authorities and ultimately, the matter has gone to home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna for approval and the matter is still pending there. 5. Counter affidavit was filed on 28.6.2001 and till date the Court is not being informed as to whether necessary approval has been accorded by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna with regard to the regularisation of services of the petitioner and for payment of his salary. 6. Claims of the petitioner since are being admitted, the fact remains that the petitioner till date is working, therefore, in my opinion, he would be entitled for his salary, as claimed by him. At the same time, the case of the petitioner has also been considered for his regularisation and the process for the same started but till date the same is pending. 7. At the same time, the case of the petitioner has also been considered for his regularisation and the process for the same started but till date the same is pending. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No. 5, the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi, is directed to pay the admitted salary of the petitioner with effect from 18.11.1997 till date forthwith and not later than a period of three months from today. At the same time, respondent No. 5 is directed to get necessary approval from the authorities concerned for his regularisation if not already approved within the same period. 8. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.