PAWAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Saharsa, as contained in Annexure-10, by which, he has rejected the cases of the petitioners for converting their services into regular service from work charge establishment. Prayer has also been made for quashing of his subsequent orders dated 21.01.2010, as contained in Annexure-10/1, and order dated 01.02.2010, as contained in Annexure-10/2. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with consequential reliefs.

(2.) Case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that they were appointed in a work charge establishment under the Department sometime in 1985 except petitioner no.16 who was appointed in 1989 on compassionate grounds. It is contended that prior to their appointments under work charge establishment, since 1981 they are working with the Department on daily wages. The details of their appointments in the work charge establishment and on daily wages are given in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the writ application.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government had come out with a policy to regularize the services of the employees in work charge establishment for which initially a cut-off date was fixed as 01.01.1985. However, later on, by different circular, the same was extended to 01.12.1990. Since the petitioners had completed qualifying period for their regularization they approached the respondents for the same, which was not done. Hence, petitioners moved this Court through CWJC No.12775 of 2001. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 04.05.2006, as contained in Annexure-8. In its order, this Court noticed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, as by then the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s. Uma Devi, 2006 2 PLJR(SC) 363 had come, this Court held that any policy of the Government had to 'remain within the permissible limits set for regularization by the Apex Court' and directed the respondents to take a decision in the matter of petitioner one way or other within two months.