Patna High CourtCWJC/12740/2014dismissed

Uma Kant Lal And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-06Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12740 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Uma Kant Lal S/o Late Ram Swaroop Lal Resident of Village+ PODahiwar, PS- Buxar ( Industrial), District- Buxar

2. Nasaruddin Ansari S/o Late Suleman Ansari Resident of villageRamubaria, PO- Majharia, PS- Buxar ( Industrial), District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Engineer- in- Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Dehri.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Flood Control Circle, Buxar.

6. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Flood Control Division, Buxar. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. SBK Manglam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Mandal, SC 3 and Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioners' counsel submits that since petitioners are working as daily wager in Flood Control Division, Buxar their claim for regularization should be considered by the authorities. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Specific stand is that for the very limited and intermittent periods petitioners worked long back in between 1974 to1975 (petitioner no.1) and 1985 to 1987 (petitioner no.2). Their claim for

Patna High Court CWJC No.12740 of 2014 (3) dt.06-10-2018 2/2 regularization does not even fulfill the requirement of 240 days for consideration. The averments made in the counter affidavit have not been denied or disputed by filing re-joinder to the counter affidavit.

Petitioners' claim for regularization is not worthy of consideration in view of the limited period they have performed the duties long back.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi.