- (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the light of the policy decision issued by Memo no.5940 dated 18.6.1993 by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar(as then was).
(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner has been working on daily wage basis for about 29 years, on a sanctioned and vacant post, in the Rural Engineering Organization. A Circular was issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo no.5940 dated 18.6.1993 providing for regularizing the services of the daily wagers, who were continuously worked for 240 days before 1.8.1985. The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days before 1.8.1985. He has been working on daily wage basis since 21.11.1981. A list was prepared for that purpose by the Department in accordance with the circular, in which the petitioner's name was at serial no.2. In the same list, names of Sunil Kumar Polai, Ram Prabesh Singh and Shesh Nath Shukla were at serial nos. 3,4 and 5 -below the name of the petitioner. The said persons have been regularized/appointed by the Department by office order No.01 dated 28.01.2010, communicated by Memo no.55 dated 28.01.2010, but the petitioner has been discriminated and has not been regularized. The petitioner made several requests and filed representations before the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, but till date no order has been passed. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have taken plea of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of 'Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi and Ors.'[(2006)4 SCC 1], but in paragraph -53 of the said judgment, an exception has been carved out to the general direction clarifying that there may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly qualified persons on duly sanctioned and vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or tribunals, the question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits. In such cases, the Union of India/the State Governments were directed to take step to regularize the services of such appointees, who have been working for ten years or more on duly sanctioned posts, without any intervention of the courts or tribunals. Since the petitioner has worked for long 29 years and there was policy decision of the respondents to regularize such persons and three persons, who were below in the list prepared for the purpose of regularization, have been regularized/appointed, there is no legal ground to deny the petitioner's regularization/appointment.
(3.) THE respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer. It has been stated, inter alia, in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi and Ors. (supra). However, the petitioner's claim that he has been continuously working for 29 years against the sanctioned and vacant post has not been denied by the respondents. They have also not denied the appointment of the persons whose names appeared below the petitioner in the list prepared by the respondents for regularization.;