Vishkarma Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3971 of 2018 ====================================================== Vishkarma Ram Son of Late Sundar Ram, age about 61 years, VillageNawada, P.S. and P.O.- Baniyapur, District- Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Principle Secretary, Department of Industry, Patna Bihar. 3.

The Director, Handloom and Sericulture Department of Industry, Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Dayal For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Suren Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-08-2022 The petitioner has filed this application to count his length of service with effect from 05.09.1986 based on the letter of appointment dated 05.09.1986 (Annexure 1) on the post of orderly.

The brief factual background is that the petitioner has been appointed as a jeep driver after recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). The appointment order is dated 13.06.1998 issued by the Director, Handloom and Sericulture, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Patna. This appointment of the petitioner was confirmed on 13.04.2005; and the petitioner, thereafter having completed his service tenure, has retired on 31.05.2016.

The writ petition has thereafter been filed in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3971 of 2018(3) dt.26-08-2022 2/3 month of February, 2018 claiming benefit of length of service with effect from 05.09.1986.

The respondent authorities have filed counter-affidavit wherein it is specifically asserted that the appointment of the petitioner on 05.09.1986 was on ad hoc basis without following any selection process and in the midst of a ban of appointment of any person on ad hoc basis. The said ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was illegal.

The petitioner's appointment after recommendation of the BPSC on 01.08.1998 is a fresh appointment. This appointment of the year 1998 has also been accepted as a fresh appointment by the petitioner throughout the service career. Now only after retirement, the petitioner has filed this writ petition that also without there being any material on record to show that the appointment of the petitioner on 01.08.1998 was by virtue of any revision acknowledging, any service prior thereto under any capacity.

The fact, that the earlier appointment dated 05.09.1986 was an ad hoc appointment contrary to the established procedure clearly stated in the counter-affidavit, has also not been denied or disputed by filing any rejoinder. This Court would, therefore, find that the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.3971 of 2018(3) dt.26-08-2022 3/3 has not been able to make out any case for counting any service prior to 01.08.1998 as length of service for grant of any benefit to the petitioner.

Writ application is accordingly dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U