Rekha Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14511 of 2015 ====================================================== Rekha Devi W/o Rajendra Mandal R/o Sahban tola, South of Rebero House ,P.s Khaganchi, Hat, P.o. Purnea ,District Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India and Ors 2.

The Chief Commissioner ,customs_Prevention Central Reveneu Building , 5th, Floor, Birchand Patel 3.

The Assistant Commissioner , Customs P Division, Goriyari chowk, Forbesganj, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Akshay Bahadur Mathur, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-01-2023

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed to the regularized and made permanent as in the office of the Respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a process of regularization of service of daily wages under Government of India. One time age relaxation is granted to those casual workers who were in service for regularization and permanent status and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been regularized instead the Respondents have discontinued the petitioner wrongfully in December 2007.

3. Per contra, as per the counter-affidavit, the petitioner services were discontinued in the month of December

Patna High Court CWJC No.14511 of 2015(2) dt.02-01-2023 2/2 2007. Thereafter the petitioner sent the first application for regularization of service on 26.11.2012 after a gap of about five years and thereafter she has filed the writ petition in the year 2015 after gap of eight years. I have considered the submission. The contentions raised by the petitioner are purely factual and cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. Whether a dispute has been raised before the Labour Court concerned or not is also not made out from the contents of the writ petition.

4. Keeping in view above, while leaving it open to the petitioner to take up remedy under the labour laws with regard to her retrenchment where she would prove of having worked for minimum 240 days in a calendar year, this Court finds that no relief can be granted to her in writ petition.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Sachin/- Item No. 44 U