NILAM SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a widow of late Ravindra Sharma, who has filed the writ application seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay her family pension and other retiral dues since the husband died in harness on 20.3.2010. As the respondent authorities did not take any steps in this direction, she decided to approach the High Court. The plea of the petitioner is that the Executive Engineer, Patna Division, Public Works Department, as it then was, issued an appointment letter in favour of the husband of the petitioner to work as a Vibrator Khalashi on a pay scale of Rs. 155-190. He was earlier working as a Truck Driver. The letter making such an appointment is Annexure-1, dated 19.12.1979. Husband of the petitioner joined the post. From time to time his pay scale was revised, which is certified by a look at Annexure-2 and Annexure-3. Even a service book was opened. Then the last of the revision of the pay was authorized on 21.2.2009. But despite all these actions having been taken by the respondents during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner, the respondents have taken a plea or stand in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner was never regularized or was part of the regular establishment, therefore, none of the claims is entertainable. They, therefore, are of the opinion that such an employee or the legal heirs cannot derive any benefit.

(2.) The continued association of the husband of the petitioner right from the year 1979 till the death, in the year 2010 is not denied or is not a matter of dispute. It has been a 30 years long association and uninterrupted service under the respondent State. If there was omission on the part of the respondent authorities to regularize his service, the omission or fault lay at the doorsteps of the respondents. Obviously, the need for continued engagement of the husband of the petitioner for three decades is a clear proof that even though the husband of the petitioner was part of the work charge establishment, he had acquired a right for regularization, which was more of a formality than lack of eligibility. Petitioner cannot suffer for such serious omission and exploitation of her husband, that too at the hands of the State.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the State harps on the fact that a work charge employee has no legal status. A recent Gazette notification issued on 17.10.2013 also indicates that even if a right for regularization is created by virtue of the above notification that benefit can only accrue to such person, who continued to be in employment on the date of issuance of the notification. Since the death of the husband of the petitioner happened in March 2010, obviously he cannot be regularized.