DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that petitioner no. 1 was appointed on daily wages as Typist -cum -Clerk on 1.4.85 and was posted in the Accounts Section of the Office of the Divisional Forest Office, Banka, whereas petitioner no. 2 was appointed on daily wages as Night Guard on 20.11.89 and was posted in the said office. It is assertion of the petitioners that they were paid their wages upto September, 1998 and from October, 1998 they are not being paid their wages. The stand of respondents 4, 5 and 7 in the counter affidavit is that petitioners were engaged according to the requirement of the work and availability of funds and payment were made on daily wage basis. They have also averred that petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned post nor they were selected in accordance with the rules and procedure for appointment. The resolution of the State Government dated 18.6.93 (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit) contemplates of giving preference to the employees appointed on daily wages prior to 1.8.85, who have at least put in 240 days of service prior to 1.8.85 and the case of the petitioners is not covered under the said resolution. Respondents have further highlighted that according to the resolution all those persons who were engaged on daily wages after 1.8.85 are to be disengaged.

(3.) MR . R.C. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners having worked for about a decade on daily wages, their services are fit to be regularised. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. Rathod Labhu Bechar and others (A.I.R. 2001 S. C. 706) and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from paragraph 26 of the judgment which reads as follows :