Disposed

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Dec 2012CWJC/17673/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by daily-wage employees of the Water Resources Department challenging their termination. The court observed that despite a 2009 dismissal, the State Government's 2006 Resolution regarding regularization of long-serving employees was overlooked. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chief Engineer at Samastipur to reconsider the cases within six months in accordan

What did the court decide?

Directed the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur, to reconsider the cases of the petitioners within six months in accordance with the State Government Resolution dated 16.03.2006, a

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 17673 of 2009

¶2

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

¶3

1 Kameshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Pyare Singh, resident of village – Nathupur Road, Police Station – Parsa Bazar, District – Patna

¶4

2 Jaynandan Singh, son of Sri Chamari Singh, resident of village – Allahwaleshpur, Police Station – Gauri Chak, District – Patna

¶5

3 Ram Pravesh Singh, son of late Munshi Singh, resident of village – Fatehpur, Police Station – Didarganj, District – Patna

¶6

4 Prem Kumar Sinha, son of late Raj Kishore Prasad, resident of village – Kusheta, Police Station – Hilsa, District – Nalanda

¶7

5 Arun Kumar Choudhary, son of late Gopal Prasad Choudhary, resident of village – Mahua, Police Station – Mahua, District – Vaishali

¶8

6 Umesh Singh, son of late Ram Parvesh Singh, resident of village – Fatehpur, Police Station – Didarganj, District - Patna

¶9

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶10

1 The State of Bihar

¶11

2 The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur 4 The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Anishabad, Patna 5 The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Samastipur 6 The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division – I, Jhanjharpur, District – Madhubani 7 The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division – II, Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Siya Ram Shahi, Shally Kumari & Ram Ganesh, Advocates

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

For the Respondent/s : Mr Anil Kr Singh, AC to SC 6

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 10-12-2012 The petitioners claim to be working in the Water Resources Department. They claim that their appointment was on daily wages in the year, 1979. At one stage, they were even given time scale payment as well. They are impugned by the order of their termination of service upon the recommendation by

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.17673 of 2009 (3) dt.10-12-2012

¶18

¶19

Three Men Committee allegedly after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case. Their grievance is that before they were terminated, the Three Men Committee did not notice them nor studied their paper of appointment. It is submitted on their behalf that the State Government, in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, took a Resolution dated 16.03.2006 pursuant to which certain steps were suggested to be taken for regularization of the employees of the Water Resources Department and other Departments who had been working for considerable period of time. This had been circulated under Memo No 639 dated 16.03.2006.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State submits that as the Three Men Committee had already considered the matter and passed appropriate orders, it will not be proper to reconsider the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to number of judgments of this Court where the matter has been sent for reconsideration in light of the Resolution of the State Government, as noted above.

¶21

With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶22

Having considered the matter, in my view, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been dismissed in the year,

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.17673 of 2009 (3) dt.10-12-2012

¶24

¶25

2009 and they had been working for over 20 years. While dismissing the petitioners, regards were not given to the Resolution of the State Government dated 16.03.2006, as referred to above.

¶26

In my view, considering this aspect of the matter of continuous long service, I direct that within a period of six months from today, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur would consider the cases of the petitioners once again in accordance with the Resolution of the State Government, as noted above and pass appropriate orders accordingly after hearing the parties. All the petitioners must be noticed and any decision rendered must be a speaking order duly communicated to the petitioners. It would be open to respondentChief Engineer to conduct such enquiry as he may deem fit and proper in this regard.

¶27

With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

M.E.H. /-

¶29

(Navaniti Prasad Singh)

Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameshwar Prasad Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nath Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mahesha Nand Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Zubair Ahmad and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Siya Manjhi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Nassib Marandi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.