IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1387 of 1998
DASHRATH SAH, son of Ram Bahadur Sah, resident of village -
Mahaddipur, Police Station - Pashnaha, District - Khagaria.
Versus
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
absorption.
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
2
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.)
