S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 28.09.2015, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby and where under he has passed order against the record of the case as well upon the parameter which had already earlier adjudicated upon by citing decision bereft the context not germane to the issue at hand. Further prayer is that the respondents be directed to treat him as Filter Operator Grade-I as directed by order dated 01.02.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1061 of 1999 (R) as well as order dated 10.04.2001 passed in MJC No. 676 of 1999 (R) in view of the fact that order dated 12.06.2001 was quashed vide order dated 22.05.2015 passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 4263 of 2009.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner, who is an ITI holder, was appointed on 29.09.1979 and joined on 11.10.1979 as Filter Operator on temporary basis in Rukka Filtration Plant. A decision was taken, as contained in Memo No. 639 dated 30.06.1988, in terms of decision of the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar that those work charged employees who had completed five years of continuous service in the establishment w.e.f. 01.10.1984, have been directed to be regularized. In the meantime, the State of Bihar, had taken a policy decision on 13.12.1983 to appoint a Filter Operator Grade-I for filtration plants having capacity of one MGD. Since the pay of the petitioner was not being fixed, a writ application was preferred by him being CWJC No. 911 of 1995 (R), which was disposed of on 03.05.1995, directing the Special Secretary-cum-Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna to fix the pay-scale of the petitioner as the petitioner is legally appointed employee and working on the post in question in terms of the representation made by him. The State filed a review application on the ground that no opportunity for filing counter-affidavit was given to them and the said review application was allowed and a direction was given to re-hear the writ application. Subsequent thereto, CWJC No. 941 of 1995 (R) was once again heard and vide order dated 07.08.1998, the petitioner was directed to file a detailed representation to the Special Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, PHED, who was to make his recommendation in light of the policy decision to the Finance Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. On 12.12.1998, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by a nonspeaking order, which was subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 1061 of 1999 (R) and this Court vide order dated 01.02.2001, set aside the order dated 12.12.1998 rejecting representation of the petitioner with a direction to the authority concerned to reconsider the matter by passing a fresh and reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Court was further pleased to direct the authorities to reconsider the case in light of the decisions given in the order dated 07.08.1998 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Contempt Application being M.J.C. No. 676 of 1999, which was preferred by the petitioner, was also disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2001 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Secretary, PHED, State of Jharkhand, who was to decide such representation by a reasoned order within a period of two months. Consequent thereto, the impugned order dated 12.06.2001 has been passed, rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as work charged employee and there is a bar on absorbing the work charge employee into regular establishment vide notification dated 23.10.1987, and the respondents have ignored the other point of the same notification, wherein it was stated that those employee, who have completed five years of service on 23.10.1984, were to be regularized.;