Chhedi Lal Prasad And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12780 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Chhedi Lal Prasad, son of Late Gopal Jee Prasad, resident of village- Gopalpur P.O. & P.S. Hathua, District- Gopalganj.

2. Murari Ji Mishra, son of Sri Ram Das Mishra, resident of village Banjaria, P.S.- Mahamadpur, District- Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director-in-chief Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.

6. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Gopalganj.

7. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj.

8. The Deputy Superintendent, Sub Divisional Hospital, Hathua, Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, GP 12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-10-2015 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State.

By no stretch of imagination or interpretation of any circular, any person, who had been disengaged as a daily wager way back in the year 1992, is required to be regularized when a panel is prepared in this regard.

In fact, such panels should include only such candidates, who have been in employment and continuing their duty

Patna High Court CWJC No.12780 of 2015 dt.05-10-2015 2/2 may be as a daily wager since their engagement. The idea of conferring benefit of regularization is not to bring dead people from their grave only to give them the benefit of government employment at the fag end of their life, who are worth nothing in terms of ability, skill or otherwise.

If the stand of the counsel for the petitioners is that the panel prepared by the respondent district authorities includes people, who have been disengaged in the 20th century, obviously the District Magistrate is required to revisit the same by ensuring that people, who continue to work, are only persons whose regularization is required to be considered.

Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U