R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) HEAD the parties finally. Petitioner is claiming regularization and payment of salary from the date of his joining Le. 16.12.1980 in view of the order passed by the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide order No. 577, dated 4.4.1990 (Annexure -7).
(2.) THE stand of the respondent, inter alia, is that petitioner was engaged as Work Inspector vide order No. 24 dated 11.12.1980 purely on temporary basis only for three months by the then Superintending Engineer, which was extended up to 30.9.1981. Finally, petitioner was removed from service by the then Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 16.10.1981 on the ground that he was engaged without following the rules and regulations. Further, the petitioner did not work between 16.12.1980 to 19.4.1990. It appears from Annexure -6, which is a letter dated 9.1.1989, that the Departmental State Minister directed to consider petitioner's case and treat him posted from 14.4.1988 and pay him salary accordingly. But surprisingly the aforesaid order dated 4.4.1990, (Annexure -7) relied by the petitioner, was issued by the department directing to regularize the petitioner from 16.12.1980 itself and pay the arrears of salary. From the letter dated 21.4.1990 (Annexure -8), it appears that the Executive Engineer felt some difficulty in following the said Annexure -7 order and therefore he asked for clarifications from Regional Chief Engineer but pending such clarification he allowed the petitioner to join in the work charge establishment from 20.4.1990 vide paragraph 4 of the said letter (Annexure -8). The said paragraph 4 was confirmed by the Regional Chief Engineer by letter dated 8.5.1990 (which is at page 30), pending consideration of the other aspects. Then after about fifteen years, this writ petition was filed, claiming regularization and payment of salary. It is the specific stand of the respondent in the counter affidavit that petitioner is not entitled to get any salary from 16.12.1980 upto 19.4.1990 because during this period, petitioner did not work at all; which has not been denied by the petitioner.
(3.) PETITIONER 's further case is that Smt. Phulo Baraik, Mahendra Choudhary and Tilakdhari have been regularized, ignoring the case of the petitioner. Mrs. Choudhary, appearing for the State, submitted that the case of petitioner will be considered by the Departmental Establishment Committee if he is found eligible in terms of the judgment of Full Bench reported in ).;