NIKHIL KRISHNA AIKAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case has sought for direction commanding the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department of the State of Bihar to treat him as a permanent State Government employee and to give him consequential pensionary retirement benefit. In the alternative, he has prayed for any other relief, as he is entitled under the law.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed in December, 1943 as a Cloth Inspector in the then Supply and Price Control Department of the State of Bihar. At that point of time, the Supply and Price Control Department of the State of Bihar was a temporary department and thereby, the Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. By letter dated 23rd January, 1953 (Annexure-2), the Respondents State decided to retrench temporary non-gazetted employees of Supply and Price Control Department of the State of Bihar of different districts, excluding the employees who were in the district of Patna and two other districts. As the .Petitioner was appointed as Cloth inspector (now known as District Supply Inspector) in the district of Patna, the services of the Petitioner was not terminated in pursuance of letter dated 23rd January, 1953, which will be evident from enclosure appended with Annexure-2. The Petitioner continued to remain as temporary State Government employee. It was on 17th September, 1953, by a Telegram No. 399, the Petitioner was directed to join Rajya Transport Department of the State of Bihar. The said Rajya Transport Department was a permanent department. In pursuance of Telegram aforesaid dated 17th September, 1953 (which will be evident from Annexure-7), the Petitioner joined the post of District Traffic Inspector in the Transport Department of the State of Bihar on 22nd October, 1953. Such appointment as Traffic Inspector in the Rajya Transport Department was also made on temporary basis.

(3.) It was in the year 1956, the Supply Department of the State of Bihar was made a permanent department. It was decided that the persons who were already working against different non-gazetted posts, including the post of Supply Inspector, they may be taken back in the services of the Supply Department and they be made permanent. The Petitioner having come to know of the same, filed representation in the year 1956 for his absorption as permanent Supply Inspector in the Supply Department, which was forwarded by the Transport Department vide letter dated 3rd March, 1956 (Annexure-1). On the representation of the Petitioner, the Respondents-State from Supply Department issued a fresh offer of appointment by letter dated 9th February, 1958 (Annexure-3), as temporary Supply Inspector. As such appointment given to the Petitioner to the post of Supply Inspector, was again temporary in nature, hence Petitioner refused to join the Supply Department and continued to remain in the Rajya Transport Department as Traffic Inspector.