Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 180 (PAT)

Surendra Tiwary v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-25

RAJESH BALIA, V.N.SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.11.2006 whereby C.WJ.C. No. 8927 of 2005 has been dismissed. 2. The facts as emerging from the material produced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the writ petition are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a daily rated worker on 10.11.1986 on the daily wages of Rs. 15.85 P. and was asked to work as Mali under the Block Development Officer, Tarari. 3. It appears to be a case of appointing a daily rated workman for a particular purpose as per annexure-1 the letter of his appointment. Thereafter by order dated 3rd March, 1987, at the request of the petitioner appellant, he was deputed as a daily rated workman as night watchman. It further appears from the material on record that since his services were not required, he was discontinued from the employment with effect from 31st May, 1988. It further appears from the material on record that the Block Development Officer vide his report dated 24.1.1994 has acknowledged the fact that the petitioner-appellant has been working in the office of the Block Development Officer from before and he was not disengaged. It further appears that the appellant was paid his remuneration till 31.5.1988 and the Block Development Officer requested the Deputy Collector to pay the due wages to the petitioner-appellant. 4. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have filed C.WJ.C. No. 5954 of 1995 raising his grievance about not allowing him to discharge his duty and non-payment of his salary since 1.6.1988. The said petition was disposed of on 3.1.1996 with a direction to the petitioner-appellant that he may make a representation before the Collector. 5. In pursuance of said direction the petitioner-appellant made a representation before the Collector which was rejected and the petitioner again approached this Court by filing C.WJ.C. No. 7873 of 1996 which petition he withdrew vide order dated 18.4.1996 by making statement that he would prefer to make an application before the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the District Magistrate on 18.4.1996. 6. Thus, instead of pursuing his grievance in respect of dispensation of his services with effect from 1988, through invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227, he withdrew the writ petition unconditionally and decided to approach the Divisional Commissioner who refused to entertain the claim of the petitioner-appellant. 7. 6. Thus, instead of pursuing his grievance in respect of dispensation of his services with effect from 1988, through invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227, he withdrew the writ petition unconditionally and decided to approach the Divisional Commissioner who refused to entertain the claim of the petitioner-appellant. 7. The petitioner-appellant has claimed that he was working with effect from 1986 with the respondents which fact is not supported by any material produced by the appellant. On the contrary, whatever has been referred to us by learned counsel is indicative of the fact that the petitioner-appellant has not worked since 1.6.1988 since his services were brought to an end. That being so, he cannot be held to be entitled to payment of salary since 1988. 8. The order of termination as daily worker with effect from 1988 having been challenged before this Court in 1996 after rejection of his representation by the Collector which has been withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner-appellant merely by making submission that he will approach the Divisional Commissioner, it cannot be assumed that opportunity was given to the petitioner appellant for raising this dispute again before the Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to notice that unconditional withdrawal of the petition vide order dated 18.4.1996 was recorded by the Court after a great deal of argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner, as it appears from the order itself. 9. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner-appellant for regularization of his services on the basis of two years working as daily rated workman and his absorption in permanent employment of the Government, at this stage, cannot be granted as it would certainly amount to permitting the petitioner-appellant to enter into the regular establishment of the Government, otherwise than by due process of law. 10. The petitioner-appellant is not entitled for any relief and we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. The appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. 12. Before we part with this order, the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to withdraw this appeal to approach the State Government again. 13. Prayer is refused.