Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 48 (PAT)

Surendra Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2011-01-07

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner having requisite qualification and there being availability of sanctioned post of Lecturer in Statistics at Bihar Institute of Sericulture and Handloom, Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. The Principal appointed the petitioner, who had the requisite qualification to take class in the said subject on daily wages on the recommendation of the Bhagalpur University. He was so appointed on 27.9.1980. His services were extended from time to time and ultimately on the said sanctioned vacant post, he was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months by the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Bihar, Patna. His services were extended by the order of the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Bihar, Patna, undisputedly, up to 30.12.1992 and regular payment was made to him. It is undisputed that even up to 1999, the Principal of the Bihar Institute of Sericulture and Handloom at Nathnagar, Bhagalpur had recommended for extension of petitioners services and regularization thereof to the Director, as is evident from Annexure 8 to the Writ petition. It would, thus, be seen that the petitioner was working on the said post of Lecturer in Statistics in the Institute continuously from 1980 but still his services were not regularized. Virtually this is what brought the petitioner to this Court. 2. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has already retired but he maintained that he has been working in the Institute all along. He, thus, prays for regularization of his services and claims that for the period he has worked, he must be paid and his retiral benefits should given in proportion to the period worked. 3. State has filed a counter affidavit in which it was stated that the petitioners appointment on ad hoc basis was made in 1986 after the decision of the State Government not to recruit any person. This was a general policy decision and not directed to the Institute in particular In that view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner not being regular, petitioner cannot be regularized. It is further stated that the petitioners services were approved only up to 1992 and thereafter he may or may not have worked. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 5. So far as working of petitioner after 1992 is concerned, in my view, it cannot be denied. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, with their consent, this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 5. So far as working of petitioner after 1992 is concerned, in my view, it cannot be denied. Reference in this connection may be made to Annexures 7 and 8. From communications of the Principal to the Director of 1996 and 1999, it is clear that in anticipation of approval and there being a need in the Institute for the Lecturer in Statistics, the post being sanctioned vacant post, petitioner continued. It is not the case of the State that the Institute functioned without a teacher in Statistics. 6. In my view, this Court is not required to dwell further in the factual or legal aspect of the matter as virtually similarly situated person of the same Institute, whose regularization was also refused, had come to this Court in CWJC No. 5409 of 1987 and this Court by judgment and order dated 15.5.1990 allowed the writ petition with a direction to regularize those petitioners. Similarly, in the case of a clerk appointed in the same Institute on ad hoc basis in the year 1985, recently a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vasant Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. being LPA No.781 of 2009, which was allowed on 17.9.2009 held under similar circumstances that the respondents were obliged to consider the case of regularization of the petitioner like others immediately and the petitioner could not be left out. It appears that against the judgment in LPA No. 781 of 2009, State preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP by order dated 3.5.2010 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6508 of 2010. 7. Having considered the matter, in my view, the facts are not materially different, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to consider regularization of the petitioners services as soon as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Bihar, Patna. As the petitioner has, undoubtedly, worked, he would ,be entitled to proper wages for those periods. It shall be the responsibility of the Director to see that they are paid. As the petitioner has, undoubtedly, worked, he would ,be entitled to proper wages for those periods. It shall be the responsibility of the Director to see that they are paid. More so, the liability would be there also by virtue of regularization and upon those consideration in accordance with law, petitioners post retiral dues must also be worked out within the said period.