VASANT KUMAR SON OF LATE UPENDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT, GOVT, OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) BY the order under appeal dated 30th of April, 2009 the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5355 of 2009 preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that by a reasoned order the appellant 'scase for regularization was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure -28 to the writ petition). It was also indicated by the writ Court that case of the appellant for reguiarization does not meet the requirements laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors. (3), reported in (2006)4 SCC 1 [: 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363]. Before us a simple argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that while the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Clerk on 13.7.1985 vide Annexure -1 for a period of six months and again on 24.1.1986 vide Annexure -4 the three other persons similarly appointed on ad hoc post for six months vide a later order dated 9th of September, 1986 (Annexure -5) alongwith two others were regularized in service from the date of their appointment on ad hoc basis by order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure - 12/B). It appears that some more benefits were given to those employees regularized vide Annexure -12/B vide a subsequent order dated 2.5.1998 contained in Annexure -12/C. Annexures -12/B and 12/C contain reference to the orders passed in a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9871 of an explanation that those orders have been passed in compliance of the directions/orders of the Hon 'ble High Court

(3.) IF the orders of the Hon 'ble High Court were accepted by the respondents as correct and implemented giving benefit to persons similarly situated as the appellant in that event the respondents clearly erred in law in treating the appellant differently and ignoring his claim for reguiarization only because he had not approached this Court through a writ petition. Such action of the respondents was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At the relevant time when Annexures -12/B and 12/C were passed by the concerned respondents in the year, 1997 and 1998, it was their legal duty to treat all similarly situated ad hoc employees in like manner.