Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is seeking regularization in service on the strength of his claim that he has been engaged as a Road Roller Driver since January, 1990 under the office of Block Development Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa. He had approached this Court in WP(S) No. 282/2006. Pursuant to the direction issued in the judgment dated 13.12.2011, Annexure 11, passed in the said case to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, the impugned order at Annexure 12 dated 12.7.2012 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa in Miscellaneous Case No. 4/2012 -13 rejecting his claim. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order refers to two reports; one of the Block Development Officer, Nagar Untari, which supports the engagement of the petitioner as Road Roller Driver on daily wage basis since January, 1990, while the other report of the Executive Engineer, NREP, Garhwa has opined otherwise stating that he has never worked under the said office nor has been paid for any work of Road Roller Driver from the said office. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Annexure 8, a report of the Block Development Officer, Nagar Untari, Respondent No. 5 dated 17.8.2004 bearing letter No. 495 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Garhwa.
(2.) However, presently, the petitioner seeks indulgence of the Court to allow him to raise a claim for regularization in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2015 notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha vide Memo No. 1348, dated 13.2.2015, Annexure 13 to I.A. No. 3696/2015. He submits that petitioner has been on daily wage engagement for more than 10 years before the cut off date 10.4.2006 and may be allowed to stake his claim subject to satisfaction of the laid down conditions therein to be considered by the Committee constituted in terms of the Regularization Rules. It is submitted that the Rules have given cause of action to the petitioner and the impugned order should not be allowed to come in his way to seek regularization.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent -State submits that no instructions have been received in the matter as yet, though time was allowed on 6.2.2013 itself. Learned counsel for the State submits that claim of the petitioner for regularization under Rules 2015 can only be adjudged on the satisfaction of the laid down conditions which include completion of 10 years of engagement on such daily wages/temporary service by the cut off date, fulfillment of necessary educational qualification and also availability of sanctioned and vacant post etc. by the duly constituted committee. However, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner's engagement was after 1.8.1985 and in terms of Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.6.1993 claim for regularization could not have been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.;