SURENDRA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner having requisite qualification and there being availability of sanctioned post of Lecturer in Statistics at Bihar Institute of Sericulture and Handloom, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. The Principal appointed the Petitioner, who had the requisite qualification to take class in the said subject on daily wages on the recommendation of the Bhagalpur University. He was so appointed on 27.9.1980. His services were extended from time to time and ultimately on the said sanctioned vacant post, he was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months by the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Bihar, Patna. His services were extended by the order of the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Bihar, Patna , undisputedly, up to 30.12.1992 and regular payment was made to him. It is undisputed that even up to 1999, the Principal of the Bihar Institute of Sericulture and Handloom at Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur had recommended for extension of Petitioner's services and regularization thereof to the Director, as is evident from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It would, thus, be seen that the Petitioner was working on the said post of Lecturer in Statistics in the Institute continuously from 1980 but still his services were not regularized. Virtually this is what brought the Petitioner to this Court.

(2.) It may be noted here that during the pendency of the writ petition, Petitioner has already retired but he maintained that he has been working in the Institute all along. He, thus, prays for regularization of his services and claims that for the period he has worked, he must be paid and his retiral benefits should given in proportion to the period worked.

(3.) State has filed a counter affidavit in which it was stated that the Petitioner's appointment on ad hoc basis was made in 1986 after the decision of the State Government not to recruit any person. This was a general policy decision and not directed to the Institute in particular. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the Petitioner not being regular, Petitioner cannot be regularized. It is further stated that the Petitioner's services were approved only up to 1992 and thereafter he may or may not have worked.