Lal Bahadur Singh vs The State of Bihar

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and JC to G.A., State of Bihar as also Mrs. I. Sen, Choudhary counsel for the Respondent Jharkhand Housing Board.

The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to regularize his services in the Housing Department, Bihar which issue has been pending since 1989 and to pay him the retiral dues by way of his pension, gratuity and unutilized leave salary on the basis of the benefits which may accrue upon regularization of his services.

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Electrician in the Housing Department under the State of Bihar by the order of the Executive Engineer. Housing Department on 16.10.1969. Upon such appointment, he was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 115-225/-

The petitioner''s services were thereafter placed under the State Awas Board, Patna with effect from 13.6.1975 in the pay scale of Rs. 240-396/- and his services were regularized on the post of Electrician by the State Awas Board.

The further contention of the petitioner is that the vide letter dated 18.11.1989 (Annexure-4), services of 21 employees working in the different cadres under the State Housing Department, were regularized with effect from 22.10.1984. However, the petitioner''s service was not regularized by the State Housing Department, although in the original gradation list issued by the Bihar Rajya Awas Board, the petitioner''s name had stood at serial No. 6, whereas the name of another co-employee namely, Hussain Ahmad was placed at serial No. 7.

The grievance of the petitioner is that service of his colleague Hussain Ahmad, who was junior to him in the gradation list and employed in the same Awas Board, was regularized by the State Government along with 21 other employees on 18.11.1989 (Annexure-4) with effect from 22.10.1984, but the case of the petitioner was not considered without any genuine reason.

In due course, the petitioner gained his promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 5.7.1991 under the Bihar Rajya Awas Board and later, to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Rajya Awas Board from where he has noticed.

The petitioner filed several representations for regularization of his services in order to avail the benefits of payment of pension, etc. upon his retirement, but no action was taken by the concerned authorities. It was much later, that the Electrical Executive Engineer, Awas Board, Ranchi had forwarded a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Housing Department, Bihar on 13.12.2001 with a request to send the Service Book of the petitioner since he was to superannuate from service on 31.7.2002. Though, Service Book of the petitioner was returned, but to the petitioner''s surprise, no decision on the regularization of petitioner''s services was passed and / or recorded therein.

Shri Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would explain that demanding regularization of his services, the petitioner along with several other employees similarly situated and whose cases for regularization were pending since 1989, had pressed their demand before the concerned authorities. Ultimately, the Departmental Committee at its meeting held on 12.04.2005, had taken a decision for regularization of the services of the petitioner and had recommended accordingly. However, the Housing Department of the Government of Bihar did not pass any order on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee.

The petitioner adds further that the Bihar Rajya Awas Board, Patna had earlier issued a notification declaring therein that a decision was taken on 12.6.1999 in collaboration with Life Insurance Corporation of India to pay gratuity to its 225 employees who were directly recruited in the services of the Board, but since the petitioner''s service was placed on deputation, he was left out from the benefits of such decision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been discriminated in the matter of regularization of his services and has been allowed to retire without getting the benefit of regularization in a most unjust manner.

Referring in this context to a judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Niranjan Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2009(1) PLJR 258 learned Counsel submits that the court in the aforesaid case, had considered that by the decision dated 18.11.1989 (Annexure-4 to the present writ application), the State Government had regularized the services of 21 persons, though with a rider that such persons shall continue to work in the Bihar State Housing Board. The Court had also considered the grievance of the writ petitioner that persons junior to him in the gradation list, were granted the benefits of regularization, but the writ petitioner was left out from consideration. After taking into account the fact that the writ petitioner was illegally left out from consideration and was denied the benefit of regularization of his services along with 21 other employees, the court had issued a direction to the respondent State Government to pass appropriate orders upon the writ petitioner''s demand for regularization of his services and to grant the same relief as given to the 21 other persons named in the notification dated 18.11.1989. Learned Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner stands on same footing.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (Respondent No. 3) stating therein that the petitioner was basically engaged as a work charged employee in the Housing Department under the State of Bihar and while his services were transferred to the Bihar State Housing Board on 1.12.1972, the Housing Board, Patna had already regularized the services of the petitioner as an Electrician in the month of June 1975. It is further informed that against the claim of the petitioner for his retiral benefits, he has been paid a sum of Rs. 93,632/- towards unutilized leave salary by the Electric Division, Ranchi from where the petitioner had superannuated. Furthermore, a sum of Rs. 14,085/- has also been paid towards compulsory Group Insurance on 28.7.2003 and according to the petitioner''s own admission, he has also received EPF amount. Furthermore, pension has also been fixed by the EPF and he has been receiving the same.

Counsel for the petitioner would explain that though, such benefits have been given by the Housing Board, but the petitioner is entitled to claim and receive the benefits of regularization of his services at par with those 21 co-employees whose services were regularized by the State Government way back in 1989 and the benefits of such regularization cannot be denied to the petitioner.

No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar or by the respondent Bihar State Housing Board.

Considering the entire facts and the pleadings of the petitioner and the admissions which appear to have been made in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 3, it is manifest that the petitioner, whose services together with several other employees, was placed in the State Housing Department, was omitted from consideration at the time when the issue regarding regularization of the services of the employees, was taken by the State Housing Department. It also appears that though, vide letter dated 18.11.1989 (Annexure-4), the State Government had regularized the services of 21 employees who were deployed in the State Awas Board, but the petitioner''s name was omitted therefrom, although he too like 21 other employees, was deployed to serve under the same Awas Board. No reason has been assigned as to why the petitioner''s name was left out from consideration at the time when the decision was taken for regularization of the services of 21 other employees. No reason has been assigned by the respondents as to why the petitioner did not deserve the same benefit as extended to the other 21 employees.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the concerned respondents namely, the State of Jharkhand as also the State of Bihar are hereby directed to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner''s claim for regularization of his services as also for grant of similar relief(s) as extended to the 21 co-employees, (sic). this order and communicate such decision effectively to the petitioner. Upon decision for regularizing the services of the petitioner being taken, the respondents shall ensure that all the consequential benefits thereto, from the date when it was made effective to the other 21 employees, are given to the petitioner.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the respondents.