IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6963 of 2009
Surendra Prasad Gupta & Ors.
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors .
-----------
3. 02.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
the State.
The writ petition was filed on 18.6.2009 after
serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General
as also on the counsel for the Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad
(successor body of the “Biswas Board”). Counter
affidavit has been filed by the latter denying any
answerability on the ground that the petitioners were
daily wage workers in the Board and that there existed
no scheme for regularization under the Board.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the State. Over two years time was more than
sufficient for the State to realize its duty for assisting
the Court in timely dispensation of justice by filing a
counter affidavit. The Court is not inclined to grant any
further indulgence to the State as that can only now be
at the cost of denying timely justice to the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioners were
appointed on daily wages in the PHED and their
services were transferred to Biswas Board in 1985
where they also acquired work charged status.
Subsequently they were given an option by the Board
2
to either go back to the PHED or to continue in the
Board as a daily wage. The petitioners opted for the
latter. They came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No.
3998 of 2005 seeking regularization of their services.
The Court on 19.12.2006 noticed the submission of the
petitioners that they were shuttled between the Board
and the PHED and their cases were not being
recommended to the concerned committee for
recommendation on regularization in light of the
guidelines. The Court directed the PHED to refer the
case of the petitioners to the Committee for
consideration if they fell within the cut off date,
originally 1985 subsequently advanced to 1990.
Subsequently the Chief Engineer PHED has
passed an order dated 22.5.2007 declining to refer the
case of the petitioners to the Committee holding that
the benefit of the regularization was available only to
Government servants and not to those who had been
transferred to the Biswas Board.
It is submitted that this decision by the Chief
Engineer is without jurisdiction in view of the order of
the Court directing the PHED to refer it to the
Committee. The decision was to be taken by the
Committee and not by the Chief Engineer. Any further
enquiry, if it was required to be made, had to be so
3
done by the Committee itself.
Counsel for the State is unable to satisfy the
Court that the order dated 22.5.2007, being an
individual decision of the Chief Engineer was in
compliance with the directions of the Court in C.W.J.C.
No. 3998 of 2005 which vested jurisdiction exclusively
in the Committee concerned.
It is therefore held that the decision dated
22.5.2007 is not sustainable being in teeth of the
directions of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of 2005.
It is accordingly set aside.
Mandamus is issued to the PHED to act in
accordance with the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of
2005 and take a decision in accordance with law
through the Committee concerned within a maximum
period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order before them,
if not already taken.
Let the respondents file their affidavit of
compliance within a period of three months. The writ
application stands disposed with the aforesaid
directions when it shall be listed under the heading
“Orders” after three months on the aspect of
compliance only.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)