ARBIND KUMAR Vs. B S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing for the respondents on the point of limitation and finding sufficient cause for not preferring this review petition within the period of limitation prescribed by law we condone the delay in filing the review petition and proceed to hear learned counsel Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha appearing for the respondents on the point of admission.

(2.) The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India bearing CWJC No. 11604/93 in this Court for quashing the order dated 25.9.1993, contained in Annexure 14/1, issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as unskilled khalasi as well as the consequential order dated 1.10.1993 (Annexure 14) issued by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bhagalpur Area Electricity Board, communicating the aforesaid order to the petitioner.

(3.) As it appears the substance of the petition was that the petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on a contingent basis on 3.8.1988 and he continued as such. On 29.3.1989, the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') took a policy decision for regularisation of the services of the persons continuing on contingent/muster-roll basis' for a year or more and for the said purpose a Committee was duly constituted Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Dumka sent a list of eligible persons including the petitioner to the Deputy Director of Personnel, Bhagalpur for regularisation of services but no decision was taken in the matter. On 29.1.1992 the petitioner was appointed provisionally as unskilled khalasi vide Annexure 4. On 24.2.1992 the appointment of the petitioner as unskilled khalasi made on 29.1.1992 by the General Manager was cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner had come to this Court in CWJC No. 3322/92 challenging the order dated 24.2.1992 whereby and whereunder this Court quashed the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice with an observation that if the authorities concerned want to proceed further in the matter then they may pass a fresh order after observing the principles of natural justice. It further appears that even after order of termination of the petitioner having been quashed by this Court this petitioner was not allowed to join and so petitioner represented the matter before the concerned authority. In the meantime on 25.6.1993 petitioner was served a show cause notice as to why his services be not terminated and after consideration of show cause filed by this petitioner the petitioner was again terminated vide order dated 25.9.1993 (Annexure 14/1 of the writ petition). The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 25.9.1993 on the ground that in view of the policy decision of the authority the services of the petitioner should have been regularised as he had worked more than one year and that similarly situated persons have been regularised. The said writ petition challenging order dated 25.9.1993 was dismissed on merit. It further appears that the petitioner assailed order dated 10.5.1995 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 11604 of 1993 in L.P. A. No. 581 of 1995 which was also dismissed by order dated 17.1.2003.