NIRANJAN KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER wants a direction upon the respondents especially the Building Construction and Housing Department to regularize his services on the post of Upper Division Clerk right from 22.10.1984 in the light of Resolulion No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 as this kind of benefit has already accrued to a large number of persons by virtue of order No. 2329 dated 18th November, 1989, contained in Annexure -11.

(2.) SOME basic facts are not disputed that the petitioner was recruited as a work charge employee under the then Housing Department but when the Housing Board came to existence, large number of employees of the Housing Department were sent to work under the Housing Board. At the time of constitution of the Housing Board, the Board of Directors had taken a decision that terms and conditions of service as well as other related rules including Bihar Service Code would be applicable to such employees till an appropriate regulation is made by the Bihar State Housing Board. Even as of today the said service regulation has not yet been finally given shape and notified. Petitioner 'ssubmission is that in terms of a decision of the State which is Order No. 592 dated 28.3.1988, 21 persons came to be regularized and given permanent status in terms of Annexure -11 but with a rider that they shall continue to work under the Bihar State Housing Board. Quite a few persons whose name figures in Annexure -11 are juniors to the petitioner who entered in service on 1.7.1971. In this regard name of Sri Mathura Prasad at Serial No. 1, Shri Uma Shankar Prasad at Serial No. 9 and Shri Ram Sunder Prasad at Serial No. 16 is highlighted. The petitioner therefore has a grievance of being left out of the benefit though his position was not different from the rest. He has further brought materials on record contained in Annexure -14 that a kind of decision or a recommendation was made to regularize the services of the other left out employees including the petitioner as would be borne out from Annexure -14 to the writ application. But despite guidelines in this regard the said benefit never accrued to the petitioner and the decision of follow -up action has remained in the file of the Government.

(3.) STATE has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary one also but their stand seems to be more evasive if not misleading in certain aspect. They do not deny the decision taken and the benefit conferred on 21 persons by virtue of Annexure -11 but they say that since service regulation is already in place of the Housing Board, the matter rests with Housing Board and the State has nothing to do now. Similar prayer and relief by some other petitioners has been refused by the court.