JUDGMENT
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. During the pendency of the writ application, the writ petitioner Rakesh Nath Sahay died on 17.7.2000 and, as such, in the application made by his widow Nisha Sahay for her substitution in place of her deceased husband, the prayer was allowed and now Mrs. Nisha Sahay had been substituted in place of her husband Rakesh Nath Sahay as the petitioner in the present writ application.
2. In the instant writ application, the husband of the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service with effect from his due date or at least from 3.2.1989, the date from which the persons junior to him were regularised. Further prayer is for a direction to pay his legal dues i.e. arrears of salary since October, 1994 and bonus etc.
3. The case of the original writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Conductor on casual basis on 7th January, 1981 by issue of Office Order No. 28 of 1991 under the signature of Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Purnea and he joined, as such, on 9th January, 1981, Thereafter from Purnea he was transferred to Ranchi Division, Ranchi of the Bihar State Road transport Corporation (hereinafter is called in short as BSRTC for the sake of convenience) by office order dated 14.1.1983 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. It is the specific case of the original writ petitioner that he was in continuous service since the date of his joining without any break.
4. For regularisation of the services of the casual workers a writ application was filed and ultimately the matter went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of Civil Appeal No. 1509 of 1987 filed by the General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Karamchari Union by order dated 16.12.1987 with a direction to the respondents BSRTC to prepare a reasonable scheme within 8 months for regularisation of the casual labourers who were working for more than one year and to pay the salary and allowance to them at the rates equal to minimum pay in the scale of regularly employed person in the corresponding cadre of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1987 and to pay all arrears payable pursuant to the order within four months from the date of the order. A copy of the order of the Supreme Court has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application.
5. It is stated that pursuant to the said order of the Supreme Court a list for regularisation was prepared after calling the names of such casual conductors posted in different divisions and thereafter all those persons were regularised by the respondents. Further case of the original writ petitioner is that on enquiry he came to know that in the said list there was a wrong entry with regard to his date of appointment and in place of 7.1.1981, it was wrongly entered as 14.1.1983, i.e. the date on which he was transferred from Purnea to Ranchi and, therefore he made a representation before the Divisional Manager to make necessary correction in the said list and to do the needful. Accordingly, the Divisional Manager, Ranchi sent a letter to the Additional Managing Director on 26.8.1988 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, wherein the Divisional manager, Ranchi, admitted that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 7.1.1981 and, therefore, recommended for necessary correction to be made in the said list.
6. The grievance of the original writ petitioner is that the aforesaid list of casual conductors who were regularised, included the name of altogether 377 persons and his name ought to have been listed at serial No. 350 in the aforesaid list i.e. just before Satrughan Prasad at serial No. 351 whose date of appointment was 8.1.1981 but because of the error committed by the respondents, he was not regularised and he was not given the same benefit of regularisation and monetary benefits as were given to those conductors, who were juniors to him.
7. The respondent-Corporation by filing a counter affidavit controverted the claim of the original petitioner, stating therein that his continuous service was treated to be from 14.1.1983 and, therefore, his claim that he should have been placed at serial No. 350 is not correct rather treating his continuous service to be from 14.1.1983, he has been placed at serial No. 690 and, therefore, his turn would come according to the list, he will be regularised.
8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondent-Corporation by filing a supplementary affidavit annexed the complete list of the casual conductors, which was prepared for the regularisation by the Corporation which consists the names of altogether 924 persons and the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 690.
From perusal of the said list, it appears that there are altogether 13 columns in the said list, column No. 6 is with regard to the date of appointment, Column No. 7 is with regard to the break in service and Column No. 8 is as regarding date of continuous service. Against the name of the husband of the petitioner in Column No. 6 i.e. regarding the date of appointment, it has been mentioned as to be 7.1.1981 and in Column No. 7 i.e. regarding the break in service, it is mentioned as “No” (Nahin) meaning thereby that there was no break in service but in Column No. 8, regarding the date of continuous service, it has been mentioned as 14.1.1983.
9. It is not the case of the respondents that there was any break in service of the husband of the petitioner after he was initially appointed on 7.1.1981, which is evident from the list as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 21.11.2003 and, therefore, there is no reason for treating his continuous service with effect from 14.1.1983. As already discussed above, by Annexure 8 i.e. by letter dated 26.8.1988, the Divisional Manager, Ranchi of the BSRTC had himself recommended for correction of the wrong entry made in the list by the Corporation and, therefore, I am of the view that there is apparent error in the list prepared by the Corporation i.e. Annexure B to the supplementary counter affidavit, wherein the name of the husband of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 690. As a matter of fact, his name should have appeared at serial No. 350 considering his date of appointment, just before Satrughan Prasad whose date of appointment was 8.1.1981 and he was placed at serial No. 351.
10. In view of my discussions and findings above, this writ application is allowed.
The respondents are directed to correct the
said seniority list for absorption of the
casual conductors as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary counter
affidavit and the name of the husband of
the petitioner, Rakesh Nath Sahay be
placed at serial No. 350 and thereafter give
him all consequential benefits treating to be
regularised and from the date from which
the person at serial No. 351 Satrughan
Prasad was regularised in service, within a
period of four months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Since the petitioner has sufficiently been
harassed for no fault on his part rather on
apparent mistake committed by the
respondents and, therefore, the petitioner
is also entitled to the cost which is assessed
at Rs. 5,000.