Letters Patent Appeal No.1287 of 2000
(Against the order dated 14/8/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in
C.W.J.C. No. 1221 of 2000)
--------------
MD. SHABBIR KHAN -----Appellant
Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. -----Respondents
-----------
For the petitioner-Appellant - Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad,
Mr. Amir Alam
For the Respondents - Mr. Piyush Lal,
SC. to AAG-III.
PR E S E N T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN
Prasad & Writ petitioner-Appellant aggrieved by the order dated
Ranjan, JJ.
14/8/2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
1221 of 2000 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this
appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that
the father of the writ petitioner-appellant (hererinafter referred to
as the writ petitioner) was a Peon who died on 10/9/1986 while
in service. After his death, the petitioner applied for appointment
on compassionate ground and according to the prevalent
practice, he was appointed as Mazdoor on daily wages, to
-2-
which post he joined on 17.12.1986. Respondent No. 3 Sri
Suresh Nayak and respondent No. 4 Md. Narul Hooda were
appointed as a regular Peon by order dated 30/11/1999 and
25/11/1999 respectively.
It is relevant here to state that the petitioner earlier
filed C.W.J.C. No. 2163 of 1998 (Md. Shabbir Khan and Anr.
Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Anr.) for
issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus to appoint him
on a regular basis to a Class-IV post. This Court by order dated
22nd of December, 1992, dismissed the writ application.
However, after the appointment of respondent Nos. 3
and 4 aforesaid on a regular basis, the writ petitioner filed the
present writ application for quashing their appointment and also
for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for
appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Peon with
effect from 17.12.1986. By reason of the impugned order, said
prayer of the writ petitioner has been dismissed and aggrieved
by the same, he has preferred this appeal.
Mr. Thakur, appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed
as Peon on a regular basis, there is no justification to appoint
the writ petitioner as daily Mazdoor. He submits that the writ
petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a regular Peon at least
from the date of respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed.
Mr. Piyush Lal appearing on behalf of the High Court,
-3-
however, contends that respondents No. 3 and 4 have been
appointed after coming into force of the Patna High Court
Officer and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rule 1997,
and Rule 13 thereof enables Hon’ble the Chief Justice to make
appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate ground. He
points out that at the time the writ petitioner was appointed, the
aforesaid Rule was not in operation and the practice prevalent
was to appoint as Mazdoor on daily wages.
Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not
find any substance in the submission of Mr. Thakur. Writ
petitioner cannot make any grievance of appointment of
respondents No. 3 and 4 to a Class-IV post as those
appointments have taken place after coming into force of the
Patna High Court Officer and Staff (Condition of Service and
Conduct) Rules 1999. Section 13 of the said Rules enables the
Hon’ble Chief Justice to make appointment to a Class-IV post.
We hasten to add that this enabling provision does not confer
any right to claim appointment to a Class-IV post on
compassionate ground. Undisputedly, writ petitioner’s
appointment had taken place prior to coming into force of the
said Rules. Not only this, the prayer made by the writ petitioner
for appointment on a regular basis to a Class-IV post was
dismissed by this Court by order dated 22 nd of December, 1992
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2163 of 1998.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
-4-
the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Peon cannot be
faulted and further the writ petitioner has no right to be
appointed as Class-IV post from the date he was appointed as
daily Mazdoor.
We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge
had not committed any error while passing the impugned order.
In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal
and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to
costs.
(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.)
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)
Patna High Court
Dated, 3rd Sept.2008
NAFR/S.Ali