GANESH PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner was engaged to serve as a Night Guard on daily wage basis in the Central Design Centre, Patna with effect from 1.12.1987. He was disengaged with effect from 14.10.2004, whereafter he filed C.W.J.C. No. 15325 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court under orders dated 6.7.2005, Annexure-14 directing the authorities to consider his case for regularization in the light of the circular of the State Government, whereunder cut-off date for regularization of the Muster Roll worker was extended from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the authorities have passed the impugned order, bearing Memo No. 2878 dated 12.8.2006, Annexure-16 rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization in the light of paragraph 2(3)(i) of Resolution bearing Memo No. 639 dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15, which enable the State-respondents to regularize only such daily wage earners, who have served against sanctioned post and according to the authorities, the post of Night Guard having not been sanctioned in the Central Design Centre, Patna, request of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that authorities have erroneously considered the import of paragraph 2(3)(i) of the Resolution dated 16.3.2006, Annexure-15, which provides for regularization of the daily wage earners, who have served against sanctioned post under the department/attached office and regional office. In the instant case, petitioner was serving as Night Guard in the Central Design Centre, Patna, which was under the Directpr, Sericulture and his case was required to have been considered against sanctioned post of Night Guard available in the Directorate of Sericulture, attached office or regional office under the Director, Sericulture, but without consider the case of the petitioner for regularization against sanctioned post of Night Guard under the Director, Sericulture, attached office and regional office, his case has been rejected on the ground that petitioner served as Night Guard where there was no sanctioned post of Night Guard.