BANDHU BOIPAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to absorb and/or regularise the services of the petitioner, since he is working on class III post w.e.f. 15th May, 1982. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on class III post and since then he is working on such post without any interruption. It is further stated that pursuance to the direction of the Government, list of daily wages according to the seniority, was forwarded to the authority concerned for regularisation of their services on the post on which they were working, which is apparent from the letter of the Chief Conservator of Forest (Development) addressed to all the Chief Conservator of Forest, directing them to prepare the list of daily wages employees who have completed 240 days on or before 1.8.1985, copy of the said letter is made annexure -5 to the writ petition. Pursuant thereto, list of the daily wages, according to the seniority, was prepared and sent to the respondent -authority for consideration. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent, wherein, it is stated that the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, has expressed its opinion to the effect that the post must be advertised for making appointment on such post. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner cannot be regularised on class III post, unless and until he passes the examination for appointment on such post. The submission of the learned counsel for the State seems to be wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as class III, employee in 1982, though on daily wages, and since then he is working continuously on such post without any interruption whatsoever and as such it cannot be said that he is not legible for appointment on class III post, particularly when he is working since the day of his appointment. It has neither been stated in the counter affidavit nor it has been submitted during the course of argument that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on class III post. In this view of the matter, I have no alternative but to direct the respondent -authority to absorb/ regularise the services of the petitioner provided he is still working in terms of his appointment letter, as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is accordingly allowed, to the extent indicated above.