Dashrath Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 21 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Dashrath Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 21 September, 2010
                                       CWJC No.1387 of 1998
                  DASHRATH SAH, son of Ram Bahadur Sah, resident of village -
                  Mahaddipur, Police Station - Pashnaha, District - Khagaria.
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                  2. Secretary- cum- Commissioner, Water Resources Department,
                      Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
                  3. Director Revenue (Administration), Water Resources Department,
                      Bihar, Patna.
                  4. Special Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Water Resources
                      Department, Bihar, Patna.
                  5. Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Purnea.

For the petitioner: Mrs. M Chatterjee.

                  For the State     : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG - 9.

09.   21.9.2010                  Petitioner, a Seasonal Tax Collector, wanted absorption in

the regular establishment of the Irrigation Department. Since the

respondents were not forthcoming on the claim of the petitioner, he had

to file the present writ application seeking a direction for such


Many a things have been stated in the writ application

including the point of discrimination. But all the aspects have lost their

meaning because time and events have overtaken the claim of the

petitioner in the meantime and to that extent the petitioner seems to

have lost his right or claim in the changed circumstance.

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the respondents duly sworn by the Under Secretary of the

Department of Water Resources where a clear statement has been made

in para 4 that the State Government has as a matter of policy done away

with the engagement of seasonal tax collectors and there are no more

engagements of seasonal tax collectors by the department after the year

1997-1998. Those who were in the permanent establishment have now

been accommodated on some other posts in the wing of the department

and there is no occasion now to regularize the services of the

petitioner as a seasonal tax collector whatever be the length or period of

service he may have rendered under the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the

claim of the petitioner must be looked at from the point of view when

the issue was raised and the petitioner’s claim ought to be adjudicated in

that background.

This Court has certain reservation in taking such a wide

view because availability of the post is a must before any direction

for consideration of regularization can be given. It is the length of

service and experience gained by the petitioner of the post or the nature

of the work, which will entitle him for any benefit. That cannot be

utilized for accommodating the petitioner on any post only because he

had served the organization for a long period of time and some others

who were permanent employees have been accommodated elsewhere.

It may be a hard case of the petitioner but the events being

what they are, the Court cannot pass any direction in favour of the

petitioner in view of the changed circumstance.

The writ application is dismissed.

rkp                            ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *