Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 196 (PAT)

Ram Adhar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-02-22

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The Court had adjourned the matter on 17.1.2005 to enable the office to trace out the counter affidavit stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In view of the report of the office this Court called upon the learned Counsel for the State to make available an extra copy of the counter affidavit from his record which was stated to have been already served on the Counsel for the petitioners. The Court proceeded to adopt this approach so as to facilitate the disposal of the writ application in view of the limited nature of the contro- versy and the scope of the order that could be passed thereupon in writ jurisdiction. 3. The petitioners herein seek the relief for regularisation of their services on the plea that they have been working as Seasonal Tehsil Sangrahak (Seasonal Tehsil Tax Collector) in the Department of Irrigation, Government of Bihar for more than 18-23 years. The Details of their initial date of appointments would find mention in para 4 of the writ application. The grievance of the petitioners would be that despite recommendation of their cases for reguiarization and that they had achieved the tax collection of 25% of the target they were wrongly black-listed and not considered for regularisation while their juniors had been so considered. 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents would contend that the petitioners were issued show cause notices. The counter affidavit would contend that in accordance with the Government policy the persons like the petitioners were required to achieve the minimum target of 25% of revenue collection to enable their cases to be considered for regularisation. Show cause notices having been issued to the petitioners for their failure to fulfil 25% of the targeted collection, they failed to give satisfactory reply, for which reason their cases could not be considered for regularisation. The counter affidavit in para 11 and 15 would however contend that should the petitioners furnish the necessary information with regard to their having achieved 25% of the targeted collection the respondents would not be averse to consideration of their cases for regularisation. 5. This would be a very fair stand on the part of the respondents. The counter affidavit in para 11 and 15 would however contend that should the petitioners furnish the necessary information with regard to their having achieved 25% of the targeted collection the respondents would not be averse to consideration of their cases for regularisation. 5. This would be a very fair stand on the part of the respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the present writ application can be disposed off with a direction that should the petitioners present the respondent authority with evidence and materials of their having achieved 25% of the targeted collection capacity, the respondents in accordance with their stand before this Court would consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation. Let such consideration be done within a period of four months provided the petitioners present themselves with necessary information before the respondent no. 2 who shall retain the authority to authorise the necessary respondent to proceed further in the matter. The petitioners would be obliged to do so within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the respondents would be under no obligation to consider the same. 6. A further claim has been made in para 18 of the writ application that the petitioners have not been paid their dues since 1989 for duties performed as Seasonal Tehsil Collector. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent does not deny the said claim. This Court however considers it appropriate to direct that the petitioners shall furnish necessary information with regard to the periods that they have performed their duties and have not been paid for the same, before the respondent no. 2 within the same period as prescribed above. The respondent no. 2 at his discretion may authorise any of the respondents to look into the matter. The dues of the petitioners, as may be ascertained by the respondents, must be so done within a period of one month thereafter and admissible dues found, if any, must be paid to the petitioners forthwith. 7. This application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated.