High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Naresh Gope vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Naresh Gope vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 September, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CWJC No.5985 of 2010
         1. Naresh Gope S/O Shri Ram Lal Gope R/O Vill Bihari, P.S.Jamui,
         Distt-Jamui
                                  Versus
         1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Land
         Reforms And Revenue Department Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
         Patna
         2. The District Magistrate -Cum-Collector Jamui
         3. The Additional District Magistrate Nazarat, Distt-Jamui
         4. The Deputy Development Commissioner Jamui
         5. Rajesh Rawat S/O Not Known R/O Vill Khaira, P.S.Khaira, Distt-
         Jamui
                                            -----------

3. 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

the State.

Mr. Banerjee for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has been working since 1984 on daily

wage as a Driver which is more than sufficient

indication of the need for regular personnel. The

respondents cannot evade that responsibility by

continuing an Ad hoc arrangement when the petitioner

does not have much of a choice in the matter.

A daily wage appointment is an Ad hoc or a

stop gap arrangement in the exigency of the work. It is

an exception to the normal Rule of sanctioning posts

and making appointment especially where the need be

there. The exception cannot be turned into the Rule. If

what the petitioner contends is correct, long

continuance of a person on daily wage in a Government

establishment itself amounts to violation of the

constitutional obligations. The appointment is the
2

discretion of the employer and no mandamus can be

issued for that purpose. But a subterfuge by not

making regular appointment and utilizing the service of

daily wage person evading responsibility and liability

which fall with regard to a regular appointee as distinct

from daily wager is not permissible in law.

It is submitted that regular sanctioned posts

are lying vacant. If the respondents propose to do so

let them advertise the same and fill it up in accordance

with law within a maximum period of six months from

the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

In no circumstances can the respondents evade such

appointment by utilizing daily wagers against such

posts.

If the petitioner applies in response to the

same, let his application be considered appropriately

on its own merits. However, it is expected that issues

of age relaxation and weightage for past work

experience shall be appropriately considered by the

respondents as a matter of policy, since they

themselves also ultimately stand to gain by utilizing the

experienced services of the petitioner.

The writ application stands disposed.

P. Kumar                                              ( Navin Sinha, J.)