ASHOK KUMAR SON OF KAPILDEO THAKUR Vs. DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING; DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY; STATE OF BIHAR; GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the State Council of Education Research and Training (in short SCERT). It appears that the petitioner was appointed temporarily with effect from 01.04.1989 in the SCERT. His services were then regularized in the year 1991. It appears that he was regularized but soon after as the numbers of posts were reduced in the said organization, with effect from 27.08.1992, all posts being abolished, petitioner's services were terminated. He was then posted as Attendant in the Hostel run by the said organization, subject to adjustment in other department/organization of the government, as per the policy decision of the government. It appears that several other persons were similarly retrenched, all but the petitioner were adjusted, pursuant to the government policy. Petitioner was left out and not only that even though work was being taken for some time petitioner was not being paid his due remuneration. As such, petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2542 of 2003. In the said writ application respondents filed their counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. The letter has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have admitted the claim of the petitioner for regularization. They have admitted that all other similarly situated persons had already been regularized and the matter of petitioner was under consideration and recommendations had been made. Upon these admissions, the writ application was disposed of by judgment and order dated 05.05.2003, noticing the facts and directing for payment of salary to the petitioner from 1998, when work was stopped being taken from him on the ground of post being abolished up to date. Obviously, no order was passed in respect of absorption of petitioner, inasmuch that right was conceded and accepted in the counter affidavit of the respondent themselves.

(2.) It is not in dispute that petitioner was ultimately paid due wages up to April 2003 but again thereafter neither was anything paid nor petitioner regularized. Petitioner immediately moved this Court again by the present writ application.

(3.) Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing in support of the petition takes strong objection to the said conditions. He first submits that the facts aforesaid would show that he was thrown out from SCERT and was not adjusted on the plea that vacant posts were not available then for sometime work was taken from him on ad hoc basis, even that payment was not paid to him. He came to this Court and thereafter up to 2003 payments were made to him without petitioner being adjusted any where though other similarly situated persons were adjusted. Then, when this present writ application was filed a plea was taken that his file suddenly vanishes and as such no adjustment can be done. Now, at last on pressure being built up by this Court files are traced out and appointment in the same very organization is made where he worked. This clearly establishes mala fide in fact if not in law as against the respondents. Apparently, these facts also show that the reason for not adjusting petitioner was anything, not bona fide. It was clearly as if petitioner was being punished for something which he ought not to have done or which he have done this Court will not speculate into that aspect of the matter. It is further submitted that it is the respondents who have deliberately and by their negligence kept petitioner out of work. It is elementary that because of default of a person another cannot be made to suffer. Here, there was admitted default on part of the respondents in finding placement for the petitioner. He was discriminated. The discrimination was hostile and now to deprive him of his wages for all these years would be adding insult to injury. It is then submitted that petitioner even earlier was paid in similar fashion by orders of this Court in the earlier writ petition, then why deny payment to the petitioner now. When in 2003 respondents became aware that they were duty bound to adjust the petitioner, they could take no steps till the matter was taken up by this Court and pressure was put on them to discover the file and pass appropriate orders, as claim of petitioner had been admitted in the first writ application itself.