SHREENIWAS PODDAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 20th Dec., 2011 in CWJC No. 20918 of 2011, whereby the claim of regularisation of the appellant was declined, inter alia, on the ground of delay and laches and also for the fact that his age of superannuation was falling on 31st of Oct., 2011, whereas he has filed the writ petition on 25th of Oct., 2011, therefore, could not be considered for regularization.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the Resolution dated 17th Oct., 2013 whereby the cut off period of regularisation of employees of work charged establishment was extended. It is contended that in terms of the extended cut off date fixed vide Resolution dated 17th of Oct., 2013, the appellant satisfied the parameters of regularization, therefore, he is entitled for a direction to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the Resolution of the State Government and the policy, instructions issued from time to time.

(3.) We do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Resolution dated 17th Oct., 2013 is after the cut off date of superannuation, i.e. 31st of Oct., 2011 and the employee who has already attained the age of superannuation cannot be extended the benefit of subsequent resolution passed almost two years later. Still further, since the appellant approached this Court just six days before his age of superannuation, therefore, no direction can be issued. The regularisation has to be on the date when an order is passed. The order of regularisation cannot have retrospective effect. 4. In Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Surji Devi, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 310 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of work charged service cannot be given to an employee whose services are not regularised before his death. Since the appellant could not be regularised before his attaining the age of superannuation, there cannot be any direction to regularise his service. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same thus stands dismissed. Writ Appeal dismissed.