BIMLI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a widow of late Sushil Paswan. Her husband was working on the muster roll in work charge establishment as Choukidar under the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gaya. He died on 27.4.2009. Now, the widow is claiming benefit of post retiral dues and family pension for herself and her children. Husband of the petitioner was engaged on muster roll on 9.9.1982 by view of Annexure-1, issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Gaya. He joined the establishment on 1.2.1983 as a Choukidar with a pay scale. He continued to discharge his duties in that capacity till his death rendering about 26 years of service under the respondent State. After the death of the Employee, petitioner moved the respondent authorities to pay her benefits by virtue of the period of work her husband had rendered. Since nobody paid any heed, she was compelled to file the present writ application.

(2.) Stand of the petitioner is that by virtue of a Division Bench decision dated 3.5.2007 rendered in CWJC No. 16060 of 2004, which was the case of Subhash Paswan and Others v. The State of Bihar & Ors., the husband of the petitioner had to be treated as a regular employee and extended benefit especially when the above position was affirmed even by dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Her plea is that by virtue of the decision rendered in the case of Koshi Project Worker s Association v. State of Bihar, 2007 1 PLJR 358 work-charge employees are supposed to be treated as permanent employee after a year. Besides, from time to time the State Government had also issued notifications for regularization of service of work-charge employee and even cut-off dates have been extended by virtue of which benefits should have accrued by regularization of service of the husband of the petitioner. If there was omission on the part of the State, the failure is of the State. Even as recent as 17.10.2013, a notification has been issued by the State of Bihar extending the benefit of regularization to such employees. Merely because there is death of the husband of the petitioner prior to issuance of the said notification, the petitioner cannot be left to fend for herself.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision rendered in the case of Most. Baby Devi v. State of Bihar, 2012 3 PLJR 910. Reliance is on paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said decision, which are reproduced hereinbelow:--