Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 20 (PAT)

Ganesh Prasad Shukla v. State of Bihar

2012-01-05

V.N.SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was engaged to serve as a Night Guard on daily wage basis in the Central Design Centre, Patna with effect from 1.12.1987. He was disengaged with effect from 14.10.2004, whereafter he filed C.W.J.C. No. 15325 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court under orders dated 6.7.2005, Annexure-14 directing the authorities to consider his case for regularization in the light of the circular of the State Government, whereunder cut off date for regularization of the Muster Roll worker was extended from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the authorities have passed the impugned order, bearing Memo No. 2878 dated 12.8.2006, Annexure-16 rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization in the light of paragraph 2 (3) (i) of Resolution bearing Memo No. 639 dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15, which enable the State-respondents to regularize only such daily wage earners, who have served against sanctioned post and according to the authorities, the post of Night Guard having not been sanctioned in the Central Design Centre, Patna, request of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that authorities have erroneously considered the import of paragraph 2(3) (i) of the Resolution dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15, which provides for regularization of the daily wage earners, who have served against sanctioned post under the department/ attached office and regional office. In the instant case, petitioner was serving as Night Guard in the Central Design Centre, Patna, which was under the Director, Sericulture and his case was required to have been considered against sanctioned post of Night Guard available in the Directorate of Sericulture, attached office or regional office under the Director, Sericulture, but without consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against sanctioned post of Night Guard under the Director, Sericulture, attached office and regional office, his case has been rejected on the ground that petitioner served as Night Guard where there was no sanctioned post of Night Guard. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that petitioner may be entitled for being considered for regularization against a post of Night Guard in the office of the Director, Sericulture, attached office or regional office, provided he has been appointed by the competent authority. 4. Counsel for the State opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that petitioner may be entitled for being considered for regularization against a post of Night Guard in the office of the Director, Sericulture, attached office or regional office, provided he has been appointed by the competent authority. Petitioner, having been engaged by the Incharge of the Centre, who had no power to engage, cannot be considered for regularization. 5. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the letter of the Incharge, Central Design Centre, Patna dated 9.9.1992, Annexure-6 submitted that petitioner was engaged in the Central Design Centre, Patna to serve as Night Guard under the instruction of Sri Mahendra Mishra, Assistant Director, Industries, who was Incharge of Sericulture and Assistant Director was vested with the powers to make appointment on salaried post and to fix the wages of the appointee under the instructions of the State Government contained in letter No. 1776/CT dated 11.2.1965, Annexure-18. 6. It appears, while passing the impugned order dated 12.8.2006, Annexure-16 rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization, the Industrial Development Commissioner has not considered the relevant aspect of the matter with reference to paragraph 2 (3) (i) of the Resolution dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15 that considering the exigency of the circumstance petitioner was engaged to serve as Night Guard by the competent authority at the Central Design Centre, Patna which is required to be considered for regularization of the petitioner against sanctioned post of Night Guard in the Directorate/ Attached office, Regional office but without considering the same rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of Night Guard in the Central Design Centre, Patna, which is quite contrary to the import of paragraph 2 (3) (i) of the Resolution dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15. 7. In view of my discussion above, I have no option, but to quash the impugned order, bearing Memo No. 2878 dated 12.8.2006, Annexure-16, which is, accordingly, quashed with direction to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Patna to reconsider the matter in the light of my observation above as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order by the Industrial Development Commissioner, Respondent no.2.