Binod Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11799 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.
Binod Ram Son of late Rajendra Ram R/o Village+ P.O.+ P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur.
2.
Bharat Bhushan Ram @ Bharat Bhushan Jamadar Son of late Manchan Ram R/o Village- Bhagwanpur Chak Shekhu, Ambedkar Nagar, P.O.+ P.S.- Dalsingsarai, Samastipur.
3.
Binod Kumar Son of late Tarni Prasad R/o Village- Nikaspur Pachniyari Tola, P.O. Nikaspur, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. 4.
Ram Pravesh Mahto Son of late Lakshman Mahto R/o Village+ P.O.- Sakarpura, P.S. Hasanpur Road, District- Samastipur. 5.
Parikshan Kamati Son of late Mohan Kamati R/o Village- Atarbel, P.O. Kansi Simri, P.S. Singhwara, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Pubic Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.
The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.
The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna. 6.
The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 7.
The Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna.
8.
The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Darbhanga. 9.
The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Samastipur. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
2.
The petitioners have assailed the order dated
2/5 19-05-2018, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby and whereunder the petitioners' engagement on daily wages has been brought to an end. The impugned order is stated to have been issued under Clause- 5 of Resolution dated 16.03.2006, bearing Letter No. 639 (hereinafter referred to as 'Resolution No. 639').
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' engagement on daily wages basis is since before the cut-off date (11.12.1990). The procedure prescribed in Clause 5 of Resolution No. 639, referred in the impugned order has not been followed.
4.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits, that a three Men Committee constituted pursuant to this Court's orders passed in CWJC No. 7359 of 2002 considered the petitioners' claim along with other aspirants for regularization in the Public Health Division, Samastipur. Category-wise seniority list was prepared based on Date of Birth, roster clearance and after following the reservation policy in light of Resolution No. 639. Seniority list was, thus, prepared and as per the same, the daily wager employees, based on seniority, have been recommended for regularization. The petitioners could not be regularized because they were below
3/5 those who were regularized from the seniority list. It is also stated that the process of regularization was a one time exercise and as per Resolution No. 639, those who could not be regularized, were to be removed from their daily wage services as per Clause 4 of Resolution No. 639.
5.
Upon considering the rival submissions and going through the records, this Court would find that the respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit that petitioners were engaged as daily wager in between the year 1979 to 1983. The fact of petitioners being engaged on daily wages prior to cut-offdate is not in dispute. 6.
Clause 5 of Resolution No. 639, which has been relied upon in the impugned order for disengaging the petitioners, reads as follows:- "5. यददि दकिससी दविभभाग / किभायर्यालय में दरिदकक्ति नहह हहो क्तिहो ऐसे दविभभाग / किभायर्यालय में किभायर्यरिक्ति दिददनकि विसेक्तिनभहोदगययों किहो, दविशसेष पदरिदसस्थिदक्ति में उनकिसे दभारिभा लम्बसी अविदधि क्तिकि दिददनकि मजदिदरिसी परि किभायर्यरिक्ति रिहसे जभानसे किसे आलहोकि में अनुकिम्पभा किसे आधिभारि परि दविचभारि किरिक्तिसे हनुए उनकिसे दभारिभा दिददनकि विसेक्तिनभहोगसी किमर्मी किसे रूप में पदर्य दकिए गए विषर्य (दजस विषर्य में किम से किम 240 ददिनयों क्तिकि किभायर्य दकियभा गयभा हहो) किसे अनुसभारि प्रदक्तिविषर्य किसे दलए 15 ददिनयों किभा दनयमभानुसभारि लभागद पभादरिश्रदमकि दिसेकिरि हटभा ददियभा जभायसेगभा । परिन्क्तिनु ऐसभा पभादरिश्रदमकि 20 विषर्षों से अनदधिकि अविदधि मभात्र किसे दलए दिसेय हहोगभा ।"
4/5 7.
It is manifest from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19-05-2018 that the process envisaged under Clause 5 has not been followed. The fact that the petitioners were below in the zone of consideration for regularization in the seniority list prepared in the year 2006, as stated in paragraph No. 18 of the counter affidavit, is not denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The stand regarding the petitioners being beyond the zone of consideration, therefore, does not require any interference.
8.
The third reason assigned in support of the petitioners disengagement is based on Clause 4 of Resolution No. 639, which reads as follows:- "4. ददिननांकि 11.12.1990 किसे बभादि किभायर्य परि रिखसे गयसे सभसी प्रकिभारि किसे दिददनकि विसेक्तिनभहोदगययों किहो इस सर्षोंकिल्प किसे दनगर्यक्ति किसी दक्तिदस्थि से एकि मभाह किसे अन्दिरि हटभा ददियभा जभाएगभा । ऐसभा नहह किरिनसे परि क्तिस्थिभा क्तित्सर्षोंबर्षोंधिसी भनुगक्तिभान दकिए जभानसे परि उसकिसी विसदलसी सर्षोंबर्षोंदधिक्ति किभायर्यालय प्रधिभान किसे विसेक्तिन से किसी जभाएगसी । सभास्थि हसी दिददनकि विसेक्तिनभहोदगययों किहो मजदिदरिसी भनुगक्तिभान किसे सर्षोंबर्षोंधि में जहो दविपत्र किहोषभागभारि किहो भसेजभा जभायसेगभा उसमें दनकिभाससी एविर्षों व्ययन पदिभादधिकिभारिसी दभारिभा प्रमभार-पत्र ददियभा जभायसेगभा दकि ददिननांकि 11.12.90 किसे बभादि किभायर्य परि रिखसे गयसे दिददनकि विसेक्तिन भहोदगययों किसी मजदिदरिसी भनुगक्तिभान किसी रिभादश प्रसक्तिनुक्ति दविपत्र में सदम्मदलक्ति नहह हद ।"
9.
The justification based on Clause-4 is unacceptable as it is not a reason assigned in the impugned order dated
5/5 19-05-2018. Assigning of additional reasons by way of counter affidavit is clearly impermissible. The law is clear that an order has to be considered on the basis of the reasons assigned in the order. This legal issue stand settled by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill & Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405.
10.
Even otherwise, from bare reading of Clause -4, it appears that it is applicable only to those daily wager, who were engaged subsequent to the cut-off-date, which does not apply to the petitioners. The reason based on Clause 4 of the Resolution No. 639, therefore, is also not tenable.
11.
In view of consideration above, the impugned order dated 19-05-2018, bearing Letter No. 760, issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Samastipur, is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The Authorities, however, would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with Resolution No. 639, in terms of the procedure taken note of above. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24-12-2022 Transmission Date