Shree Bhagwan Ram Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Singh JC to SC-I.

2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for the following reliefs :

(a) For a direction upon the respondents to appoint/absorb/regularize his service on a permanent sanctioned Class-IV Post on which he had worked on Muster Role since 4.10.1985.

(b) For a direction upon the respondents to pay him regular salary w.e.f. November 1996 to December 1997 (i.e. is the period during which the petitioner alleges to have worked) and which has not yet been paid to him.

3. The petitioner has further made a prayer through an Amendment Petition that the subsequent order of termination from service dated 26.12.1997 passed by the respondent No. 5 and as contained at Annexure-10 thereto be set aside and quashed.

4. Reference in this case may be made to the Order No. 4 dated 8.3.2000 passed by a Division Bench. It was held that this case appears to be covered by another Division Bench Judgment delivered in CWJC No. 1377/1997(R) and other analogous cases. The said judgment is reported in 2001(4) PLJR 638 and it is also a judgment of a Division Bench of then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court.

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner relies heavily upon paragraph-16 of the said judgment. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner's services have already been terminated on 26.12.1997, this Court, at the threshold, cannot grant the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ application. During the course of arguments however, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the only ground for terminating the services of the petitioner was on account of a policy taken at the level of the Government by which it had, inter alia, been resolved that daily wagers appointed after 1.8.1985 should be discontinued. The petitioner was appointed on 4.10.1085.

6. However, according to Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, on 28.12.1998, i.e. much after the Government had taken the aforesaid decision, the same Government took another decision to pay regular salary to daily wagers or work charged employees appointed prior to 23/10/1987. According to Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner in so far as the petitioner is concerned because by An-nexure-18 appended to the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, the concerned authorities have admitted that other daily wagers whose services had also been terminated in the same ground of having been appointed after 1.8.1985 were taken back in service due to exigencies of work and they are continuing in the Department till date.

7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia also drew attention of this Court to the recommendations sent in favour of the petitioner by some of the authorities concerned and makes a grievance that notwithstanding such recommendations, the authorities have done nothing in the matter.

8. Looking at the case from the various angles, it does definitely appear to this Court that somewhere along the line, the petitioner has been singled out and dealt with in a discriminatory manner. If the authorities themselves had admitted by Annexure-18 that similarly situated persons were reappointed then there is no reason why the petitioner should also not have been given a fair and similar treatment at the hands of the respondents and that too, when, recommendations were made in his favour. However, taking into consideration the fact that Annexure-18 is issued by the Executive Engineer, this Court considers it desirable that the matter should be looked into afresh by the Engineer in Chief of the concerned Department of the Government of Jharkhand. While looking into this matter he will give due regard and consideration to Annexures-15, 16 and 18 appended to the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit. The aforesaid consideration should be not only in relation to the claim of the petitioner for re-employment but should also in relation to all his other claims.

9. It goes without saying that, if in fact, the petitioner is found to have really worked then there should be no difficulty on the part of the Engineer-in-Chief to pass orders relating to payment of salary for the period he had actually worked.

10. It order to facilitate early disposal of the matter, the petitioner should file a fresh and detailed representation within a period of four weeks from today. Upon the receipt thereof, the authority shall deal with the same in the manner indicated above and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has remained out of service since 1997, it is expected that the Engineer-in-Chief disposes off the matter as early as possible.

With the aforesaid observations anddirections, this writ petition stands disposed off.