LALAN PRASAD YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the order dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure -9) has been challenged. By this order, petitioner who was a Peon, a class IVth employee, was provisionally appointed as dispatch clerk, a class IIIrd post with effect from 1.8.1995. Petitioner claimed that instead of 1.8.1995 he should have been appointed on the said post of dispatch clerk with effect from 8.7.1986. On 3.9.1997, during the pendency of this writ petition, on his purported representation, he was appointed on the post of dispatch clerk, with effect from 1.8.1986, without monitory benefits, vide Annexure -A to the counter affidavit. Though this order dated 3.9.1997, not granting monitory benefits, has not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition but his learned counsel submitted that petitioner is entitled to the monitory benefits also with effect from 1.8.1986.

(3.) IT prima facie appears that the Circulars issued from time to time have not been followed while passing the said orders dated 8.7.1986, 21.7.1995 and 3.9.1997. The Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar issued a Circular on 31st March, 1992 superseding all earlier notifications and providing that appointments on class IIIrd post will be made through Bihar Subordinate Service Selection Board. The respondents have taken stand in paragraph 9 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 12.1.2004 that the said notification is not applicable in the instant case because the petitioner 'scase has been considered with effect from 1.8.1986, as per the Resolution prevalent at that time, and in view of the direction of this Court passed in CWJC No. 1324 of 1994. In my opinion, the Department was/is required to act, on the basis of the Circulars which are operative at the time of passing of the order. High Court never said that the respondents should ignore the law and procedure.