Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 396 (PAT)

Prabhans Ram v. State Of Bihar

2013-03-20

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs enumerated in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:- “1. That the instant writ petition is being preferred invoking the equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the grant of the following Reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to discharge their legal obligation and to regularize the service of the petitioners who have been working on daily wages in various divisions of the Ganga Project under the Bihar State Water Board (respondent no.5) for the last several years (more than 25 years approx.); (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to absorb the petitioners on the sanctioned vacant posts lying vacant, after the regularization of their service; (iii) For grant of such other relief/ reliefs as the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are working for more than 25 years on daily wage basis under the respondent Bihar State Water Board, Patna, and though the petitioners submitted their representations for regularization of their services in view of the policy decision of the respondent State, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, but till date on one pretext or other, neither their valid grievances have been redressed by the authorities concerned, nor their representations have been rejected. It is highlighted that in view of the policy decision of the State Government, as contained in Annexure-2 and 3, the respondents are obliged to consider their claim for regularization in service. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4 as also respondent no. 5 and 6 though have opposed the prayer made in the present writ petition, but have fairly submitted that if the petitioners file their representations separately with supporting documents, then that shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law by bearing in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as also other materials produced by the petitioners by a reasoned and speaking order. 5. 5. After having heard the parties and in view of the nature of claims raised in the present proceeding, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this matter pending any longer before this Court. However, the interest of justice would be sub- served if the petitioners are granted liberty to file their detailed representations separately before the respondent no.6 with all supporting documents raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding. It is ordered accordingly. 6. If such representations are filed by each of the petitioners before the respondent no.6 within a period of one month from today with all supporting documents, then he and/or any other competent authority of the respondent State of Bihar shall be obliged to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. It goes without saying that while considering the claims raised on behalf of the petitioners respondent no.6 and/or any other competent authority of the respondent State shall be obliged to take into consideration the judicial pronouncements made by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnatka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], particularly paragraphs 43 and 53 as also the other materials including the Government resolution, as contained in Annexures- 2and 3. The respondent no. 6 and/or any other competent authority are obliged to undertake only one time exercise with respect to the claims of the petitioners and similarly situated other daily wage employees within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of the representations by each of the petitioners, if not already undertaken by them in light of judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi(3) (Supra). 7. The present application stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.