Dinesh Chandra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.806 of 2011 ====================================================== Dinesh Chandra son of Siya Ram Singh Resident Of Village Meyar, P.SChabilapur, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Home (Police), Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda Biharsharif.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Nalanda, Biharsharif.

5. The Officer Incharge, Rajgir Police Station, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rashid Ijhar For the Respondent/s : AC to GP 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-10-2015 Heard Mr. Rashid Ijhar, learned counsel who was assisted by Mr. Rashid Rais, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP No. 1.

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Dafadar / Choukidar as Ewazi. It has been claimed that petitioner had discharged duty as Ewazi Dafadar /Choudkidar in place of his grand father since 1.1.1989. It has been claimed that the petitioner has not been paid salary since the year 1990 till the date of filing of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was recommended but the Government Officials

Patna High Court CWJC No.806 of 2011 (6) dt.27-10-2015 2/3 did not take any decision on such recommendation and they are sitting tight over the matter till date. Mr. Rashid Ijhar, learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to certain statements made in the supplementary affidavit tried to persuade the court that the petitioner was paid some remuneration. However, in the supplementary affidavit also there is no such specific averment or date, and as such, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner may not be entertained. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 wherein a plea has been taken that petitioner has made contradictory statement. On the one hand petitioner is claiming that he had discharged duty as Ewazi Choukidar since 1.1.

1989 whereas it is the case of the petitioner that his grand father who was working as Dafadar in Rajgir P.S., Circle No. 16, on 14.2.1990 had recommended to appointment the petitioner as Choukidar. It has also been claimed that by efflux of time and in view of orders passed by different courts Government has taken a decision not to appoint / regularize Choukidar/ Dafadar in the manner in which it was earlier done and finally in the year 2006 Government has come out with a Rule in respect of service of the cadre of Choukidar vide Bihar Choukidar Sambarg Niyamawali, 2006.

Patna High Court CWJC No.806 of 2011 (6) dt.27-10-2015 3/3 In view of the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit as well as the fact that as per the claim of the petitioner himself that his name was recommended in the year 1990 and he has not been paid salary since the year 1990, at such belated stage it would be difficult for this court to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U