Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 643 (PAT)

Nand Kishore Sharma v. State of Bihar

2019-04-23

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, ANJANA MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. The claim in this appeal is for setting aside the judgment dated 22nd December, 2017 of the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer of the appellants for reinstating the appellants in service as regular permanent employees in the Rural Works Department has been declined. The learned Single Judge has borne out the details of the factual foundation of the case from which we gather that the appellants who were on the work charge establishment had been inducted on the said basis in between June to December, 1992. 2. The question of absorption or regularisation which had to be considered was in respect of employees who had been appointed prior to 11th of December, 1990. 3. The Resolution No. 10710 that was filed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the State also indicates that such employees who have been placed in the work charge establishment after 11.12.1990 should be removed. Thus, regularisation was available only to those who had been appointed prior to 11th of December, 1990 and those who came to be inducted later on had to be removed. This factual foundation was taken notice of by the learned Single Judge who further went on to traverse the law on the said subject relating to regularisation of daily wagers. The learned Single Judge referred to the judgment in the case of Durganand Jha and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2007 (4) PLJR 259 , the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Bimli Devi, 2016 (1) PLJR 452 and the other judgments in relation to the aforesaid subject matter whereupon it was concluded that the said judgments clearly declined the said benefit of regularisation as claimed by the appellants. 4. We may also put on record that in respect of the guidelines of the year 1949 which were relied on, the same was considered by another Full Bench in the case of Mobina Khatoon vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2019 (2) BLJ 9 and the Full Bench did not find the said guidelines to be available for the purpose of extending any such benefit to work charge establishment employees. 5. 5. We have considered the entire facts and the case law on the subject as discussed by the learned Single Judge and we find that the claim of the appellants was not in conformity with the policy of the Government with regard to regularization of work charge employees. It goes without saying that once the Government had already undertaken some steps of regularisation in respect of employees appointed prior to 11.12.1990, then in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , no such further benefit is extendable and even otherwise the impugned judgment does not suffer from any such legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. 6. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this appeal for the foregoing reasons which is hereby dismissed. 7. The dismissal of this appeal will, however, not preclude the State Government from taking any decision otherwise that may be permissible in law in respect of the claim of the appellants.