Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 836 (PAT)

Dinesh Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar

2005-09-15

body2005
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure 1 series dated 13th April, 2002 issued vide memo no. 2322 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been reverted to their substantive post of Daily Wage Workers in compliance of the order as contained in Annexure 2. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially the petitioners were engaged as Daily Wage Workers in between 1978-1982. Thereafter, they were appointed on regular basis in the work charge establishment itself in the year 1988. The petitioners continued on the regular basis in the work charge establishment and now they have been reverted to their substantive post of daily rated workers in view of the resolution of the State Government as' contained in Annexure 9 dated 23.10.1987 wherein it is stated that the persons engaged prior to the cut-off date i.e. 22.10.1984 are to be regularised in terms of resolution dated 23.10.1987. It is also submitted that admittedly the petitioners were appointed much prior to the cutoff date i.e. 22.10.1984 and since they had continued to work for more than five years, they were regularised in terms of the resolution of the State Government dated 23.10.1987 and now without any rhyme or reason they are being reverted to their substantive post. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the order of reversion as contained in Annexure 1 series have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and, therefore, action of the State authorities should be held as wholly without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. 4. On the contrary, J.G. to S.C. 3 submits that the Finance Department, Government of Bihar has withdrawn the budgetary allocations for the Public Health Engineering Department and necessary instructions were issued for appointment on daily wages posts keeping in view the financial exigencies. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been found to be regularised after the cut-off date i.e. 22.10.1984 and, therefore, they have no right to continue on the regular post in the work charge establishment. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners initially were appointed on daily wages in between 1978-1982 and, thereafter they were regularised in the year 1988. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners initially were appointed on daily wages in between 1978-1982 and, thereafter they were regularised in the year 1988. Since the initial appointment of the petitioners was much prior to the cut-off date i.e. 22.10.1984, the cases of the petitioners could not have been governed by the resolution of the State Government as contained in Annexure 9 holding their appointment after the cut-off date. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contention, has placed reliance to the case of Triveni Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. and Jagdish Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6153 of 2000 and 7559 of 2000 respectively which has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court. 6. In the case of Triveni Mahto (supra) this court held that the resolution no. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 of the State Government came into existence much after the initial engagement of the writ petitioners and, therefore, the same was not applicable in their cases. It was also held that in such circumstances when the writ petitioners were absorbed/appointed against the vacancies of work charge establishment, their absorptions cannot be said to be violative of the resolution of the Finance Department as referred to above and, therefore, cancellation of their absorptions, was wholly without jurisdiction. 7. In view of the facts as stated above, the case at hand, is squarely covered by the judgments of this court as referred to above which has been affirmed up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11748 of 2002. The order of reversion passed against the petitioners, in this view of the matter, is held to be violative of the principles of natural justice and wholly without jurisdiction. 8. This writ application is accordingly allowed. The order as contained in Annexure 1 series are set aside. Since the petitioners are continuing on regular post by virtue of the interim order passed by this court dated 29.4.2002, necessary payments are directed to be made to them towards remunerations/salary, if not paid already.