UMESH KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this batch of four writ petitions is common and as such they are disposed of by a common order. THE dispute relates to regularization of the petitioners under the Bihar State Housing Board (in short, 'the Board'). THE petitioners seek quashing of the office order of the Board, contained in Memo No. 1631 dated 8.5.2002, by which their services have been terminated. THEy further seek direction to regularize their services in the work charged establishments on the posts of Chaukidarand Typist-cum-Clerk respectively. THEre are 14 petitioners in all. Out of them 13 petitioners of CWJC Nos. 6395, 6749, 7432 of 2002 were working on the post of Chaudkidar while the sole petitioner of CWJC No. 8259/2002 was working on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk.

(2.) THE representative facts may be noticed from CWJC No. 6395 of 2002. THE case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as Chaukidar under the Board on daily wages in 1980-81. According to them 342 persons in all were engaged on daily wage basis since 1975 on different Class I'll and IV posts up to 1986-87. Dispute arose with respect to their regularization which travelled upto the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 11538 of 1988 (giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 766 of 1991). By order dated 13.2.1991 the Supreme Court directed regularization of 257 persons working on daily wages in the work charged establishments. However, the Board regularized only 192 of them. Some of the left out filed CWJC No. 3630 of 1992 in this Court. On 29.8.1997 the petition was disposed of with a direction to regularize rest of the persons numbering 65 within six months of the receipt of the order in accordance with the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court. THE authorities of the Board however sat-tight until 8.5.2002 when by the impugned office order they regularized 35 more working on daily wages leaving out the petitioners. A bald allegation has been made to the effect that this has been done on pick and choose basis and for extraneous consideration. It has been stated that those engaged later than the petitioners have been regularized while the petitioner have been by passed. Names of Tarkeshwar Prasad, Anil Kumar Sharma, Basudeo Rao, Rajnath Thakur and Sheopujan Prasad have been mentioned in this connection According to the petitioners the Board is obliged to regularize ail those whose names were mentioned in the chart enclosed with the letter dated 30.6.1990 referred to in the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.2.1991. In the circumstances, their services having been terminated by the said order dated 8.5.2002, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the order and a direction to regularize their services.

(3.) IT would appear that the crux of the dispute centers around the question whether the chart which was enclosed with the letter dated 30.6.1990 or referred to in the order of the Supreme Court contained the names of 257 persons as asserted on behalf of the petitioners or the names of 342 persons as asserted by the Board, for, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court 257 daily wages workers were entitled to be regularized as per the chart enclosed with the letter dated 30.6.1990.