Dismissed

Raj Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Aug 2012CWJC/14245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC dismissed a writ petition filed by daily wage D.D.T. sprayers seeking regularization or appointment. The court held daily wagers have no right to regularization post-Umadevi and rejected claims for age relaxation as executive prerogative.

What did the court decide?

The writ applications were dismissed; no appointment was granted and no age relaxation allowed.

Raj Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.14245 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14245 of 2012

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Raj Kumar Yadav S/O - Late Arjun Yadav R/O - Village - Pokharsam, P.O. - Milki Chak, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga

¶5

Babu Prasad Yadav S/O - Sri Laxmi Yadav R/O - Village - Pokharsam, P.O. - Milki Chak, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga

¶6

Kailash Yadav S/O - Sri Laxmi Yadav R/O - Village - Pokharsam, P.O. - Milki Chak, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga

¶7

Devendra Yadav S/O - Sri Ram Chandra Yadav R/O - Village - Mohammadpur Gorghatta, P.O. - Dhoi, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga

¶8

Jiwneshwar Prasad Gupta S/O Late Maheshwar Gupta R/O - Village Gorghatta, P.O. - Dhoi, P.S. - Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga

¶9

Ramdeo Paswan S/O - Sri Mishri Paswan R/O - Village - Kamalpur, P.O. - Chakle, P.S. - Baheri, District - Darbhanga

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶11

Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶12

The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare Department Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶13

The Director In Chief, Health Services, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶14

The Chief Malaria Officer, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶15

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga

¶16

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical-Officer, Darbhanga

¶17

The District Malaria Officer, Darbhanga

¶18

.... .... Respondent/s

¶19

====================================================== Appearance :

¶20

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh Gp2

¶21

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶22

2 30-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶23

State.

¶24

The petitioners are stated to have been appointed on Daily Wage as D.D.T. Sprayers in between the years 1985 to 1992. A panel of such Daily Wagers was prepared on 15.01.1993 which included them. In the final panel they were not included.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.14245 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶26

Their association filed writ applications. Relegated back to the authorities, they achieved no success. The petitioners submit that they were all along being considered for absorption. On 02.12.1991, directions were given to prepare a panel for appointment on Class-IV in which preference was given on basis of Seniority to such daily wages. Similar directions were issued on 11.08.1992. Others similarly situated approached this Court in writ applications disposed on 29.02.1996 with directions to consider their cases. Similar directions were given on 04.03.2004 in another writ application. A provisional panel was prepared on 03.10.2004. The aggrieved moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13634 of 2005. On 28.04.2011 the Court directed the District Magistrate to consider them for appointment in accordance with their qualifications, Seniority and availability of the post.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the petitioners were included in earlier panels, directions have been issued by the Court from time to time, the failure of the respondents to comply the same by providing them appointment cannot operate to their prejudice on the ground that they may have become over age in the meantime. Reliance is placed on an instruction dated 25.04.1997 to submit that age was an irrelevant issue and the consideration had to be done first with regard to

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.14245 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶29

those with the maximum age.

¶30

Counsel for the State has opposed the application submitting that if the petitioners have become over age, they have no right to be considered.

¶31

The law with regard to claims for regularization by daily wagers under went a paradigm shift with the judgment in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi) delivered on 10.04.2006. Paragraph-43 of the judgment laid down that a daily wagers hold no post and the question of their regularization does not arise. Notwithstanding the same, directions were being issued by Courts to consider such daily wagers also for regularization in terms of the discussion contained in paragraph-53 of the judgment as a one time measure. This led to the Supreme Court clarifying in (2010) 3 SCC 115 and (2010) 4 SCC 179, that daily wagers did not fall within that exception and could not be considered for regularization.

¶32

That separates the orders prior to Umadevi (supra) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the petitioners.

¶33

The petitioners further desire quashing of a panel prepared on 09.04.2012 in pursuance of an advertisement published on 14.02.2012. The last date for submission of applications under the advertisement was 31.03.2012 but the writ

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.14245 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶35

application has been filed much thereafter on 18.07.2012. If a daily wager had no right to regularization, under policies of the State Government such as sought to be relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, a daily wager could have claimed certain relaxation including that of age to be considered by the respondents. But that was possible if the petitioners had approached the Court before the last date fixed under the advertisement. After expiry of the same, the claim of the petitioners became infructuous. The writ application contains no explanation why the petitioners did not approach the court before expiry of the last date.

¶36

In (1997) 6 SCC 614 (Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v State of Rajasthan) it has been held that issues for relaxation of age are matters essentially of executive prerogative and no candidate has a vested right to claim relaxation of age, much less is the Court empowered to give any such directions being essentially matters of policy which has to be left to the discretion of the appointing authority based on its subjective needs.

¶37

The application is dismissed.

¶38

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶39

Md. Ibrarul/-

Raj Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tajmul Husain and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subhadra Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Parmeshwar Dayal Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Praveen Kumar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.arbind Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.