Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kirti Narayan Prasad on 12 July, 2011
Author: Prakash Chandra Verma
Bench: Prakash Chandra Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1523 of 2010
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Director-In-Chief, Health Services,
Bihar, Patna
2. The Regional Deputy Director Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga
3. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Madhubani
4. The In-Charge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha,
Distt.- Madhubani
Versus
1. Kirti Narayan Prasad S/O Sri Veda Nand Biswas R/O Vill.- Nakroy,
P.S.- Pipra Bazar, Distt.- Supaul
-----------
04. 12.07.2011This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15167 of 2009, by which the learned Single Judge has set aside the termination order relying on the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. reported in 2006(2)P.L.J.R.(SC)363, and considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. In paragraph 11 of the Judgment, the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
"The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten 2 years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of court or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage/ ad hoc/ casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of 3 any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above direction in Umadevi as a one time measure."
In view of the above law laid down, the order of termination of the petitioner is illegal. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than ten years of his service, as against the vacant post, appointed by the competent authority and was paid salary and was also given promotion after regularization of service and confirmation. His appointment cannot be said to be illegal, which differs 4 from irregular appointment. The appointment of the petitioner also cannot be said to be irregular and as per law laid down in Uma Devi Case in para 53 and M.L. Keshri's case. The petitioner was fully entitled for regularization of his service, therefore, his termination is bad in law.
The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith and salary shall be paid month to month regularly and arrears of salary shall be paid within four months. We fully agree with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merit.
Accordingly, this L.P.A. is dismissed.
( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. ) Mkr. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)