Patna High Court: The Bench of Ashutosh Kumar, J. allowed a civil writ petition filed by a work-charged employee and directed the concerned authority to consider his representation for regularization of service afresh after consideration of all facts.
Petitioner who was appointed against a vacant post as a work-charged employee in the year 1984 had approached this Court earlier vide CWJC No. 16872 of 2010 seeking his adjustment in government service on the ground that respondent authorities had adjusted some of the employees engaged as work-charged employee prior to 1985 and even persons who were late entrants in the service were regularized. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 19-06-2018 passed in CWJC No. 16872 of 2010, directed him to make a representation before the concerned authority.
Petitioner’s case was that his representation was considered only for literal compliance of the aforesaid order, but the same was rejected by the Chief Engineer-cum-Special Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, without assigning any reason for rejecting his representation. The said order of rejection was challenged vide the instant petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Dilip Kumar, submitted that the necessary information for disposal of petitioner’s representation was not furnished by the Superintending Engineer, but still, the order rejecting petitioner’s representation was passed. Further, the impugned order recorded that only the work-charged employees appointed prior to 1990, and who served for five years continuously and for 240 days each year were to be regularized. However, the said order did not take into account the fact that the petitioner was appointed prior to the cut-off date and had worked for 240 days in one year, which took care of the aforesaid requirement. Thus, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The Court set aside the impugned order holding that petitioner’s representation had been disposed of on half-baked facts. Petitioner was directed to make a fresh representation before the concerned respondent, who after referring to and verifying all facts, was directed to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law.[Suresh Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 507, Order dated 15-04-2019]
