BAIDYANATH ROY Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed in CWJC No. 12/96 (R).

(2.) THE petitioners case is that he has been in the service of the respondent -Board since 1982 and has been doing his duty as par with the regular employees. It appears that similarly situated other casual employees moved this court making similar prayer in CWJC Nos. 1159/95(R), 1127/95(R) and 1244/95(R) and all these writ applications were allowed by common order dated 6.12.95, directing the respondents to regularise their services. The petitioners case is that a batch of such casual workers of Ranchi Division also moved the Supreme Court for regularisation of their services in which, after obtaining a list of such casual workers working in various division of the Board, the Honble Supreme Court directed the respondent -Board in Civil Appeal No. 766/91 to regularise the services of 257 daily wages workers with effect from 19.9.90. The order was passed by the Supreme Court on 13.2.91 in Civil Appeal No. 766/91. The petitioners case is that in the list of 257 daily wages workers submitted by the Board to the Supreme Court the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned working on daily wages since 2.2.82. It is stated by the petitioner that when the services was not regularised he filled CWJC No. 12/96(R) which was heard on 14.8.96 and a direction was issued to the respondent -Board to regularise the services expeditiously. It is contended by the petitioner that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court many casual employees including 24 juniors have been regularised in services but the petitioners case has not been considered. By amendment petition the petitioner has brought some subsequent developments occurred during the pendency of the writ application. It is stated that the respondent No.1 has circulated an order dated 2.2,2001 taking a decision to terminate the services of all daily wages employees including the petitioner declaring that the list submitted by them before the Supreme Court has been exhausted.

(3.) MRS . I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Board, submitted that the Supreme Court has not passed a blanket order for regularising the services of all the casual employees rather the regularisation of service was subject to availability of vacancy and observation of reserve rules.