BHOLA PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that after his grand -father died, who was a Chaukidar, petitioner started discharging the duties of Chaukidar prior to 1st January, 1990, and accordingly on 10th July, 1991 the appropriate committee decided to acknowledge the petitioner as such Chaukidar and entitled to be treated as a Class IV employee of the State Government in terms of the policy decision of the State Government that Chaukidars working since 1st January, 1990 shall be treated as such. It is the further contention of the petitioner that by the letter dated 5th January, 1993, the District Magistrate, Gaya accepted the petitioner as a Class IV employee of the State of Bihar inasmuch as the petitioner was working as Chaukidar prior to 1st January, 1990. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner is a Government employee, his services could not be terminated without following the procedure laid down in Article 311. of the Constitution of India, but by Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition, i.e. the order dated 14th July, 2000, the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit it has been stated that the letter dated 5th January, 1993 was not sent to the petitioner. It is the specific case in the counter affidavit that the same was sent to the Anchala Adhikari under cover of a letter dated 22nd January, 1997. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner somehow managed to copy the letter dated 5th January, 1993, and after removing the provision of that letter that the appointment is provisional prepared a forged letter dated 5th January, 1993 and, on the basis thereof, instead of joining at the Office of the Anchala Adhikari purported to join Fatehpur Police Station. The petitioner despite purporting to have joined at the Fatehpur Police Station did not get his remuneration and, accordingly, on 14th January, 1999, made a representation to the District Magistrate, Gaya for payment of his salary. This representation, according to the counter affidavit, led to an enquiry when it transpired that the grandfather of the petitioner, who could nominate a person to discharge his duties, after his death, did not nominate either the petitioner or his father, and accordingly, neither the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner was working as Chaukidar prior to 1st January, 1990 and as such the petitioner could not be recognised as a Government employee for he was working prior to 1st January, 1990 and, in the circumstances, the purported engagement of the petitioner was terminated.

(3.) THE case, therefore, involves disputed question of fact, which cannot be conveniently decided in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed.