ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-5-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 13-4-2002, by which he was been disengaged from the post of Nalkup Khalasi (Muster Roll).

(2.) The case of the appellant is that the appellant was appointed on 14-12-1985 as a Muster Roll employee by the Executive Engineer against a sanctioned vacant post and was posted at Chapra. His further case is that his services were regularised in the work charged establishment against a regular scale in the year 1990, but the same was stayed. Thereafter, he filed a writ application being C. W. J.C. No. 4033 of 1993 for a direction to regularise his services and also to pay time scale of pay applicable to Nalkup Khalasi of the department. The said writ application was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-1-1994 directing to pay to the appellant the minimum of the scale payable to Nalkup Khalasi of the department with effect from January, 1994. This Court further directed that his case for regularisation should be considered in the light of the decision taken by the State Government. When the said order was tiot complied with, he filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 1127 of 1994, which was disposed of on 8-2-1996 and this Court did not proceed with the contempt case. However, it was directed that the appellant should be paid the minimum scale provided for Nalkup Khalasi. Thereafter, by order dated 2-2-1994 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application, the services of the appellant were regularised in the work charged establishment on temporary basis. Thereafter, while the appellant was continuing on the said post, the impugned order dated 13-4-2002 was issued disengaging him from the service.

(3.) The learned Single Judge did not ask the State to file a counter-affidavit and at the admission stage dismissed the writ application on the ground that the engagement of the appellant itself on the daily wages was after cut off date fixed therefore and, therefore, his disengagement was justified.