Dismissed

Arun Kumar Arun v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Apr 2013CWJC/15082/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the denial of regularisation. The appointment was for a fixed six-month term. Following the Supreme Court in Uma Devi, the Court held claims are one-time measures and denied the plea for regularisation and consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought for regularisation of service and payment of consequential benefits were denied and the petition dismissed.

Arun Kumar Arun Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15082 of 2006

¶3

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

¶4

Arun Kumar Arun S/o Awadhesh Kumar Verma of village- Chakrasul Dilawarpur, P.O.-Pratap Tand, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali, at present posted as Trainer, Rural Development Scheme, Electronic Video System Ltd. Industrial Centre, Hajipur, Vaishali.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The Secretary, Finance and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶9

The Managing Director, Bihar Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-23

¶10

The General Manager, Bihar Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. Beltron Bhawan Shastinagar, Patna-23

¶11

The Administrative Officer, Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd., Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

For the Petitioner/s Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Sahjanand Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr.Dhurendra Kumar AC to SC-16 For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5: Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Advocate

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 25-04-2013 The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation of his service with effect from 19.7.1984 on any appropriate post and further to pay him all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary from the date of his regularisation.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by office order dated 19.7.1984 (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent- Managing Director of Bihar State Electronics

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.15082 of 2006 (4) dt.25-04-2013

¶19

2/4

¶20

Development Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Patna, the petitioner, besides others, was appointed as trainer on payment of consolidated remuneration of Rs. 700/- per month for a period of six months only, and was posted in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vaishali at Hajipur. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the post, and thereafter, he still continues in service, but his claim for regularisation has not been considered and decided by the authority concerned.

¶21

Though this matter was filed as far back as on 7.12.2006 and even notice was issued to the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by an order dated 1.5.2007, and despite valid service of the notice, and their appearance though a lawyers, counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of any of the respondents till date.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and considered the materials available on record. From the document contained in Annexure-1, it appears that appointment of the petitioner on the post of trainer under the respondent-Corporation was only for a fixed tenure of six months on payment of consolidated remuneration of Rs. 700/- per month only. In the order dated 19th July 1984 (Annexure-1) it was specifically stated in paragraph-4 that the assignment shall be deemed to be completed after the completion of the period

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.15082 of 2006 (4) dt.25-04-2013

¶24

3/4

¶25

mentioned in para-1 i.e. six months. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though claims that the petitioner is still continuing in service, but he has not brought any document on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of regular selection process against the vacant and sanctioned post, or after completion of period of six months even fresh appointment letter has been issued to the petitioner by the respondent concerned retaining his service till date. In view of the judgment by Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 ], now law has been well crystallized and settled in paragraphs 43 and 53 of the said judgment with respect to casual, temporary, daily wage employees or regarding claim for regularisation on the ground of continuance in service for long period. The claims for regularisation was required to be taken up and considered as one time measure only with respect to all the employees working in that particular institution and not in a piecemeal manner. So far as the petitioner is concerned, his appointment vide Annexure-1was for a fixed term of six months only.

¶26

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred to above, this Court is not inclined to grant any reliefs sought for on

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.15082 of 2006 (4) dt.25-04-2013

¶28

4/4

¶29

behalf of the petitioner in the present application. It is,

¶30

accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

RPS/-

¶32

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Arun Kumar Arun v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Arun 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

Bihar State Local Bodies Emp.F Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Suraj Amrit Raj Vs The Bihar State Bidhyut Board and Ors.

Chandrika Prasad Singh Vs The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Chandan Chakraborty Vs Calcutta State Transport Corpn

Md. Sahabuddin Vs The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Ram Sagar Sah and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.