IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3261 of 1997
YOGENDRA PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.859 of 1997
KAMLESH NANDAN & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1898 of 1997
BASUDEO PRASAD & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6170 of 1997
KESHAW PRASAD YADAV & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.6589 of 1997
RAJ KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.3533 of 1997
RAJNISH KUMAR & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2381 of 1997
SHAMBHU SARAN SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1124 of 1997
SANJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2382 of 1997
NILABMAR THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7234 of 1997
RAM CHANDRA KUMAR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
2
CWJC No.3034 of 1997
BARUNJAY KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1787 of 1997
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.2262 of 1997
RAGHAW PRASAD SINGH & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7521 of 1998
BHUNESHWAR CHOUDHARY & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.7624 of 1998
SANTOSH KUMAR JHA & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.9074 of 1998
VISHNU KANT SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.813 of 1999
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.1555 of 2005
SURJANANDAN PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5948 of 1997
AKHILESHWAR PRASAD & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
with
CWJC No.5025 of 1997
SUSHIL KUMAR PASWAN
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
3
14. 21.9.2010 The supplementary counter affidavits which have come to
be filed on behalf of the PHED, to use the expression, are delightfully
vague. They do not answer the specific assertions made by the
petitioners that a committee consisting of five persons was set up and
according to their information, a report has come to be tendered to the
Department of Finance. This fact is neither being accepted nor denied.
One thing which has emerged from the deliberations is that
quite a few claimants or the petitioners have been accommodated but
many are still anxiously waiting for a decision as to their fate. The Court
fails to understand as to why the State is harping on the issue of
illegal appointment now in view of the steps which have been taken by
them to regularize the services of those similarly appointed. It is another
issue as to how many can be accommodated or regularized and how
many cannot. But these are juggleries which have to be done by the
State with certain amount of honesty and dedication of the cause.
Since supplementary counter affidavits have not helped in
deciding the claim of the petitioners one way or the other, the exercise
carried out today is of no use.
The Court therefore directs that let an affidavit be filed by
Mr. Surendra Kumar, Chief Engineer (Mechanical), PHED, who heads
the committee which was saddled with the responsibility of tendering a
report as to the status of the exercise carried out by the said committee
and affidavit be also filed on behalf of the Finance Commissioner,
Government of Bihar, whether such a report has been received or
tendered by the said committee within a time frame within which the
4
Government would like to take decision in this regard because these
litigations have dragged on for more than a decade now and the issue
must come to rest. The Court is not interested in adjourning the matter
any further or continuing with the exercise of exchange of pleadings.
Let both the authorities furnish their respective affidavits by
5th of October, 2010.
All these matters will come up in the same position on 5th of
October, 2010.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)