Allowed

Sailendra Kumar Verma @ Shailendra Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC15 Jan 2024CWJC/4979/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his regularization claim as it ignored court directions to verify specific documents proving continuous service. This court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration within 90 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting by petitioner's regularization claim is set aside. Petitioner directed to submit documents. Competent authority directed to pass order afresh within 90 days after providing hear

Sailendra Kumar Verma @ Shailendra Kumar Verma… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4979 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Sailendra Kumar Verma @ Shailendra Kumar Verma, Son of Late Yugal Kishore Lal Das, Resident of Village-Gora, Mansingh, P.S. Jamalpur, DistrictDarbhanga.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶11

The Deputy Development Commissioner, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶12

The Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme, DistrictRohtas at Sasaram.

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Nasriganj, District- Rohtas.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Viveka Nand, Advocate Mr. Aatish Kumar, Advocate Ms Deepshiksha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghwanand, GA-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-01-2024

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No.345666 dated 01.01.2018, passed by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 2/13

¶19

Bihar, Patna, annexed in Annexure -19 of the present writ petition by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for regularization of the service ignoring the order dated 21.06.2016 passed in by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8469 of 2011.

¶20

This case has a long history as submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner started his career in the year 1985 as a jeep driver in the government vehicle. He was appointed as a jeep driver, in Rotas Collectorate establishment on 01.03.1985 on a daily wage basis, and upon his satisfactory service, his name was entered on 15.05.1986 in Register-XXX maintained for daily wage employees in District Treasury (Zila-Nazarat) of the district of Rohtas. A certificate in this regard has also been issued by the Deputy Collector (Nazarat) of Rohtas on 02.07.1990 showing that the petitioner had been working on the post of jeep driver on daily wages from 15.05.1986 to 02.03.1988.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner continuously worked as a Jeep driver in Zila Nazarat till 02.02.1988. Thereafter, his services were transferred vide Memo No. 149, dated 03.03.1988 of the office of S.D.O., Sasaram to the Dehri Block where he worked in the capacity of Jeep driver

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 3/13

¶23

from 03.02.1988 to 30.09.1989. Again, by the order of the Collector, Rohtas his service was transferred vide Memo No. 633, dated 06.02.1989 of the Deputy Collector (Nazarat) to District Nazarat under the order of Colloector-cum-District Magistrate, where the petitioner worked continuously as Jeep driver from 01.10.1989 to 22.03.1994. The Block Development Officer, Dehri, vide his letter No. 2132 dated 27.12.1990 communicated the certificate of continuous service of the petitioner by the Deputy Collector (Nazarat), Rohtas. Thereafter, his services were transferred temporarily to the Department of National Rural Employment Programme for driving a roadroller till permanent arrangement of Roller-Driver vide Memo No. 746, dated 26.03.1994 issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Rohtas and the petitioner remained in service there without break w.e.f. 23.03.1994 up till now. After completing of 9 years of service from 1985 to 1994, he was directed to function at Nasiriganj Block, and from 1994 to 2004, he continuously worked in Nasiriganj Block. It has been submitted that the petitioner has continuously worked for the different offices of the Rohtas district for about 26 years continuously.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the years 1996-1997, a panel was prepared in the said

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 4/13

¶26

panel of daily wages, the name of the petitioner was figured at serial number 4. During his work at NREP, Rohtas, his wages were stopped. Therefore, he filed CWJC No. 7144 of 1998 praying for payment of his wages after service of notice, the wage of the petitioner was paid up to October 1998. Thereafter, in the said order, the observation for regularization has also been directed in the following way:-

¶27

“So far as regularization of service of the petitioner is concerned, in absence of guideline, no such finding can be given. However, if the post of Roller Driver is sanctioned/vacant, the respondents cannot proceed with the ad hoc arrangement for years together. In such cases, if the petitioner files a representation before the competent authority showing the vacancy the authorities will fill up the said post on regular basis after consideration of the case of the petitioner along with others.

¶28

In the matter of regularization, the petitioner should be given weightage over outsiders in terms with Government decision dated 22^nd April, 1997 and appropriate relaxation of age, if so required.

¶29

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.”

¶30

Despite the aforesaid observation being made in

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 5/13

¶32

the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization. In the meantime, a batch of cases have come before the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 12794/2000 with analogous cases in which vide order dated 22.01.2007, this Hon’ble Court has pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioners by constituting a Three Men Committee. The petitioner has not been considered according to the Committee. Thereafter, the petitioner has again filed CWJC No. 8469 of 2011. In the said writ petition, this Hon’ble Court has pleased to pass a specific order on 18.08.20211, which is as follows:-

¶33

“Learned counsel for the State must file counter affidavit duly sworn at the level of the District Administration because they are custodian of the documents with regard to the service history of the petitioner. Counter affidavit must also explain as to the authenticity of letter no. 130 dated 6.2.2010 which has been annexed by the petitioner with the writ application at page 81 which is letter of the Block Development Officer, Nasriganj to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling-cum-incharge Establishment, Rohtas at Sasaram since the document has some significance to the claim made by the petitioner in the writ application regarding length of service and his entitlement for regularization.

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 6/13

¶35

Let this matter be listed for admission after four weeks when counter affidavit on behalf of the district administration must be in place.”

¶36

Subsequently, in the said case, final order has been passed on 21.06.2016 in which this Hon’ble Court has pleased to consider as follows :-

¶37

“ …………………………………..

¶38

The case of the petitioner was considered by a three member committee and they rejected it for regularization on the ground that there were not adequate material to support the working of the petitioner since the year 1986 as asserted by him.

¶39

Now, the writ application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that full disclosure of facts and evidence was not made before the three member committee which led to rejection of the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Petitioner has brought certain more materials on record, which has originated from the system itself, to indicate that the petitioner has been working against duly sanctioned post right from 15.5.1986 till 5.1.2010, probably the date when such a certificate was issued and is part of the record at page 82 of the writ application.

¶40

When the matter was earlier came up consideration this Court as far back as 18.8.2011

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 7/13

¶42

gave a clear direction upon the respondents to verify the authenticity of the document issued by the Block Development Officer, Nasariganj to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling –cum- Incharge Establishment, Rohtasn the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State they do not deny the correctness or otherwise of the said document and the covering letter dated 6.2.2010.

¶43

In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the three member committee contained in Annexure- 13 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back for fresh consideration keeping in mind the long period of association and work having been performed by the petitioner.

¶44

It is made clear that since the three member committee was a working arrangement and it cannot be available in the original form and content, therefore, a decision in this regard may be taken by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Bihar, who is ordered to be made a respondent in the present writ application.

¶45

The writ application is allowed. A decision in this regard must be taken within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.”

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 8/13

¶48

that in compliance with the order dated 21.06.2016, passed in CWJC No. 8469 of 2011, the petitioner submitted his representation before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar who was specifically directed to verify the authenticity of the document issued by the Block Development Officer, Nasariganj to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling-cum – In-charge Establishment, Rohtas about which categorical finding has been given by the Hon’ble Court.

¶49

Learned counsel further submits that even after direction made by the Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8469 of 2011, no order has been passed. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred MJC before this Hon’ble Court and during the pendency of the MJC, this order dated 01.01.2018 has been passed. Since the order has been passed in compliance with CWJC No. 8469/2011, therefore, the contempt has been dropped and liberty has been granted to the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the said order, he may challenge the same by virtue of filing fresh writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶50

Learned counsel further submits that in the order impugned dated 01.01.2018, the case of the petitioner has not

¶51

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 9/13

¶52

been considered at all, particularly, in the light of the observation made by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8469/2011 in which there was a categorical direction that the materials on record indicate that the petitioner has been working against the duly sanctioned post right from 15.05.1986 till 05.01.2010 and probably the date when such certificate was issued and is part of the record, at page 82 of the writ petition, it was categorically directed to the respondent to verify the authenticity of the document issued by the Block Development Officer, Nasariganj to the Additional Collector, Land Ceilingcum – In-charge Establishment, Rohtas, but ignoring such observation, the order has been passed without considering that direction and claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Counsel further submits that since the said order has been passed in gross violation of the observation made by this Court, therefore, the order dated 01.01.2018 may be set aside.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the direction in the writ petition was made to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, but the said order has been passed by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, therefore, he submits that the said order is on merit as well as on technical ground are to be set

¶54

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 10/13

¶55

aside.

¶56

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered by a Three Men Committee and the Three Men Committee in the light of the observation made by this Court, not found fit to the petitioner his claim was rejected. He also submits that after setting aside the report of the Three Men Committee so far as the present petitioner is concerned, by this Hon’ble Court and also in the light of the direction made in CWJC No. 8469/2011, the case of the petitioner has been considered afresh in which neither the petitioner nor the District Magistrate, Rohtas had provided any documents any evidence in favour of the petitioner. He submits that on the 3rd page of the said order, the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna has acknowledged:-

¶57

“1. ftyk inkf/kdkjh jksgrkl vFkok vkosnd Jh “kSysUnz dqekj oekZ ds }kjk ,slk dksbZ Hkh lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k] ftlls fd ;g LFkkfir fd;k tk lds fd Jh oekZ dh fu;wfDr LFkkfir izfdz;kvksa dk ikyu djrs gq, l{ke fu;qfDr izkf/kdkj }kjk fd;k x;k gSA o’kZ 1997 esa izdkf”kr nSfud etnwjh ij dk;Zjr thi pkydksa dh lwph ds dkWaye 08 esa vafdr gS fd vij lekgRkkZ ds id 121 fnukad 30.01.01993 ds }kjk fnukad 15.05.1986 ls dk;Zjr gSA Jh oekZ ds }kjk fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr l{ke izkf/kdkj dk fu;qfDr Ik=] miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k gSA

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 11/13

¶59

Jh oekZ ds }kjk fcgkj okgu pkyd (HkrhZ ,oa lsok “krZ) (la”kksf/kr) fu;ekoyh 2014 ds fu;e 4(1) ds vkyksd esa U;wure vgZrk ls lacaf/kr dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k gS rFkkih ftyk ds }kjk tks psd fLyi lfpoksa dh f=&lnL;h lfefr ds le{k miyC/k djk;k x;k Fkk] mlesa budh “kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 10oha ikl n”kkZ;k x;k gSA vr% okgu pkyd ds fy, U;wure vgZrk ds buds nkos dks Lohdkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶60

3 Lohd`r in ds fo:} fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa u rks vkosnd vkSj u gh ftyk inkf/kdkjh] jksgrkl ds }kjk lk{; miyc/k djk;k x;kA

¶61

4 fofHkUu dk;kZy;ksa esa dk;Zjr jgus laca/kh lk{; ls izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh oekZ fnukad 15.05.1986 ds ckn 10 o’kksZ dh U;wure vof/k esa dk;Zjr jgs gSa] ijUrq bl nkSjku os vyx vyx LFkkiuk@dk;kZy;ksa esa dk;Zjr jgs gSa A bl izdkj Jh oekZ dh Lohd`r cy ds fo:} dk;Zjr ekuuk lehphu ugha gksxkA”

¶62

Observing the aforesaid reasons, this speaking order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed.

¶63

On the basis of argument advanced by the parties and the documents available on record, it transpires to this Court that the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 8469 of 2011 in which specific direction has been made to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna about the indication of the documents placed before this Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.

¶64

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 12/13

¶65

8469/2011 by which it transpired to the Court that the petitioner has been working against duly sanctioned post right from 15.05.1986 till 05.01.2010 supported by a certificate issued which is part of record at page-82 of the writ petition and upon consideration of those documents by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.08.2011, there was specific direction of this Hon’ble Court to verify the authenticity of those documents but it transpires to the Court upon perusal of the impugned order that the authenticity of those documents about which this Hon’ble Court has acknowledged in its order dated 21.06.2016 passed in CWJC No. 8469/2011, no steps have been taken and, therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned contained in Memo No.345666 dated 01.01.2018, passed by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, annexed in Annexure -19 of the present writ petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, it is set aside.

¶66

It is directed to the Principal Secretary/Secretary Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to pass the order afresh within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this order particularly considering those documents about which this Hon’ble Court has made observation vide

¶67

Patna High Court CWJC No.4979 of 2018 dt.15-01-2024 13/13

¶68

order dated 21.06.2016 passed in CWJC No. 8469/2011. The petitioner is directed to produce all documents and relevant orders before the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order.

¶69

The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna is also directed to provide the opportunity hearing to the petitioner personally or through his counsel.

¶70

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶71

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶72

Ashwini/-

¶73

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	18/01/2024
Transmission Date	NA

Sailendra Kumar Verma @ Shailendra Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sailendra Kumar Verma @ Shailendra Kumar Verma 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

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Archana Vs The State of Bihar

Rubi Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Panchu Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Bina Devi @ Bina Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Virendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.