Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 686 (PAT)

Chhedan Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-14

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 2.9.2000, issued under memo No. 265-2, as contained in annexure 1. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged as boat care taker by virtue of the order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 26.9.1997 on daily wages and thereafter the petitioner continued to work as boat care taker and by the order impugned he has been terminated. 4. Learned Counsellor the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that the appointment of the petitioner as boat care taker was on regular basis and against a scale and, therefore, he could have been terminated only in accordance with the procedures known to law. It is also submitted that the wages of the petitioner are also due. 5. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages and his wages were paid and vide order dated 20th December, 1999 this petitioner was directed to work as boat care taker on consolidated remuneration of Rs. 900.00 per month. 6. It appears that owing to the exigency of work, the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis, but he was never appointed on regular basis on sanctioned post. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that there is no sanctioned post of boat care taker and the petitioner was engaged temporarily in exigency of works on temporary basis and his wages have been paid. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, it is manifest that by order impugned, the petitioner has been disengaged from work and the order impugned, in no way, can be termed as an order of termination treating the petitioner an employee on regular basis. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 10. This writ application, accordingly, is dismissed. 11. However, in case the due wages have not been paid to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to represent his case before the authorities concerned, which would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.