Arbind Kumar vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Others

The order assailed is dated 10th May. 1995 on C.W.J.C. No. 11604 of 1933 (Arbind Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Ors.). The contention of the Petitioner that his appointment as an unskilled Khalasi had been illegally cancelled was not upheld in the writ petition. Thus, the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Petitioner accepts that he had been appointed to do the work of typist on payment of Rs 17/-per day. The Petitioner claims that he is an unskilled Khalasi and subsequently appointed as such but on daily rate basis

The case of the Petitioner had been noticed by the learned judge that the Petitioner was engaged initially on 3.8.1988, it is contended by the counsel for the appelant that this is an error and it is submitted that the Petitioner was otherwise engaged on 28.3.1988. It is accepted that he was dis-engaged, as mentioned in the impugned order itself, on 29.1.1989. On this, the Petitioner seeks regularisation of services.

On the other hand, in the counter affidavit, in paragraph 8 it is submitted on. behalf of the Board that apart from the Petitioner there were other eight persons also, who admittedly, had been engaged casually but when the matter was examined by the Committee, their cases were not put up for regularisation. The contention of the Board is that those eight persons were senior to the Petitioner and in the circumstances the services of the Petitioner cannot be regularised.

Further the Petitioner contends that subsequent to the engagement in 1988-89 he had also been called to work as is witnessed by Office Order dated 29.1.1992 when he was appointed as an unskilled Khalasi. The Petitioner further mentions that in view of what;has been placed as Annexure 3 to the petition he had been appointed by an Office Order dated 24.2.1992 but with effect from 29.1.1992. This office order records that the Petitioner has been appointed provisionally. But, this is not a letter of appointment, in fact, in the next month it cancels the appointment of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner may have received intermittent engagement by the Board. In the writ jurisdiction the court is enable (sic-unable ?) to come to any finding whether the Petitioner had been appointed casually or on a permanent basis. The record shows that the Petitioner had been appointed casually, If the contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that he had discharged continuous service within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, then, to claim permanency the Petitioner will have to prove that he had been engaged on a work which lasted throughout the year was not casual or temporary. This part of the records is missing in the aspect before the Court.

In the circumstances, this Court is unable to certify that the learned judge committed any error while denying the relief on the writ petition by his order dated 10th May, 1995.

The appeal is dismissed.