Allowed

The State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ratan Kumar Lal @ Ratan Kumar

Patna HC22 Feb 2013L.P.A/355/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, setting aside the single Judge's order. The bench held that regularization into a higher cadre (Class-III) is promotion, not regularization. The trial court was reprimanded for directing regularization for a work-charged employee who did not qualify under the Srivastava Resolution or the Uma Devi criteria laid down by a Full Bench.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 26th August 2011 was set aside.

The State of Bihar and Anr. Vs Ratan Kumar Lal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.355 of 2012

¶3

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2608 of 2007

¶5

====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar.

¶6

The Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Chief Engineer, Traffic Road Construction Department, North Bihar, Darbhanga

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Circle Saharsa, Saharsa

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Supaul

¶11

The District Magistrate, Supaul .... .... Respondents-Appellants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ratan Kumar Lal @ Ratan Kumar Raman S/o Mahanand Lal R/o Supaul, Ward No.7, P.S.-Supaul, District- Supaul

¶14

.... .... Petitioner-Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P.-7 Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad, A.C. to GP-7 For the Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

and

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

22-2-2013 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar and others against the judgment and order dated 26^th August 2011 passed by the learned single

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.355 of 2012 (13) dt.22-02-2013

¶22

2 / 4

¶23

Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2608 of 2007.

¶24

The respondent-writ petitioner is a work charge Class-IV employee under the appellant no.6, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Supaul since 1981. The writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to claim the benefit of regularization in Class-III service in regular establishment.

¶25

At the outset, we must note that regularization of service can be in the same cadre and cannot be in a higher cadre which means promotion. The promotion has to be earned and has to be granted in accordance with the relevant rules. The claim of the writ petitioner for regularization in Class-III service in regular cadre is misconceived.

¶26

It further appears that since the appointment of the writ petitioner on work charge establishment, the State Government, on 23^rd October 1987, passed a Resolution to regularize the service of work charge employees who had completed five years’ service on 21^st October 1984. Admittedly, the writ petitioner had not completed five years’ service as on 21^st October 1984 and could not reap the benefit under the aforesaid Resolution of 1987. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge has directed the State Government to extend the cut off date so that the petitioner and such others can be accommodated and regularized. Therefore, this Appeal.

¶27

We have heard the learned advocates extensively. Learned advocate Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma has appeared for the respondent-writ petitioner. He has submitted that the writ petitioner, having completed 10 years’ service, is entitled to regularization in service as has been held by the Hon’ble

¶28

Patna High Court LPA No.355 of 2012 (13) dt.22-02-2013

¶29

3 / 4

¶30

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) and others , {(2006) 4 SCC 1.

¶31

A Full Bench of this Court has considered the issue in the matter of Ram Sevak Yadav v. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C. No. 267 of 2010). The Bench has, under its judgment dated 1^st February 2013, held as under:

¶32

“A) Uma Devi (supra) prohibits regularisation of daily wage, casual, ad-hoc and temporary appointments, the period of service being irrelevant;

¶33

B) An illegal appointment void ab-initio made contrary to the mandate of Article 14 without open competitive selection cannot be regularised under any circumstances.

¶34

C)Irregular appointments can be regularised if the appointment was made by an authority competent to do so, it was made on a vacant sanctioned post, in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution with equal opportunity for participation to others eligible by competitive selection and the candidate possessed the eligibility qualifications for a regular appointment to the post.

¶35

D)The appointment must not have been an individual favour doled out to the appointee alone and the person must have continued in service for over ten years without intervention of any court orders. ”

¶36

In above view of the matter, the petitioner’s claim

¶37

Patna High Court LPA No.355 of 2012 (13) dt.22-02-2013

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

for regularization in service on mere completion of 10 years of service as work charge employee and that too in Class-III service is not sustainable.

¶40

The learned single Judge has erred in issuing direction to the State Government to extend the cut off date. In other words, to make a policy so as to accommodate the writ petitioner.

¶41

For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26^th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2608 of 2007 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 2608 of 2007 is dismissed.

¶42

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶43

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶44

Pawan/-

The State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ratan Kumar Lal @ Ratan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ratan Kumar Lal @ Ratan Kumar

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

Md.Kamaluddin Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar State Co-Operative Bank Vs the Regional Provident Fund Co.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Guru Sharan Thakur

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Anjani Pd. Ghosh

Sheo Shankar Singh @ Shankar Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Sarover Power Product Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.