Patna High Court - Orders
Tribhuwan Nath Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 October, 2018
Author: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Bench: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21242 of 2014
======================================================
1. Tribhuwan Nath Singh, son of Late Mangal Prasad Singh, resident of
At+P.O- Mohammadpur, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Shrikant Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Singh,
resident of At Dhumnagar, P.O+P.S.-Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur.
3. Keshaw Narain Singh, son of Shri Kheli Singh, resident of At P.O.-
Berahema Bazar, P.S.-Barusaj, District-Muzaffarpur.
4. Rajesh Kumar, son of Late Narendra Prasad Sahi, resident of At+P.O.-
Barusaj, District-Muzaffarpur
5. Ramdeo Singh, son of Late Rameshwar Singh, resident of At+P.O.-
Singulla, P.S.-Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. B.R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar
3. Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur
4. Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar university, Muzaffarpur
5. Principal, Jeewachh College, Motipur, District-Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, AC to SC-24
For the University : Mr. Arabind Nath Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL ORDER
2 01-10-2018Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the University.
Petitioners have filed the present application for a Patna High Court CWJC No.21242 of 2014(2) dt.01-10-2018 2/5 directions to the respondent to take step for regularization of the service of the petitioners in B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, which was made constituent in third phase. Petitioners were appointed in the year 1980 one day ahead the date of takeover of the college. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have regularly worked after the appointment by ad hoc committee of the college on 19.10.2018. Petitioner No. 1 to 4 are Class-III employee and petitioner No. 5 is Peon (Class-IV). On behalf of the petitioner firstly it is submitted that considering the case of petitioners in terms of Section 4 (1) (14) of Bihar State University Act on takeover of the college, since the petitioner were appointed before takeover their case deserve consideration in terms of Section 4 (1) (14) of the Act. In the alternative of Mr. Abhinav Srivastwa learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioners are regularly working and in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Braj Kishor Singh's case 1997 (1) PLJR 509 and the scheme formulated by the State Government vide letter No. 1820 dated 17.11.1998 the respondent were obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential benefits.
On behalf of the State counter affidavit has been filed Patna High Court CWJC No.21242 of 2014(2) dt.01-10-2018 3/5 where the stand was taken that after the decision of the State contained in letter 888 dated 17.11.1980 appointment of the petitioners are unsustainable as the appointment after 24.07.1980 could not have been made. Petitioners were appointed by the ad hoc committee of the college on 03.11.1980, whereas the college was converted as constituted unit on 04.11.1980. In the counter affidavit State has taken the plea that petitioners have not approached any authority for a direction for regularization of their services and only after 35 years they have approached this Court. The plea of the petitioners for consideration of their case on the staffing pattern is totally misconceived as the petitioners were appointed in the college in question by the ad hoc committee before the take over cannot claim benefit of Full Bench judgment in terms of staffing pattern. In the counter affidavit reference has also been made to available in the judgment of the Full Bench in Ram Sevak Yadav & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 964 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC (1). Mr. Abhinave Shrivastva has also referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Amar Kant Rai (2015) 8 SCC 265 to contend that the Apex Court has Patna High Court CWJC No.21242 of 2014(2) dt.01-10-2018 4/5 considered the case of Amar Kant Rai (Supra) for regularization after the judgment of Ram Sevak Yadav and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. In view of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Rai the case of petitioner deserve and regularization as there is no denial of the fact in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are regularly working. Since University has not taken filed in counter affidavit the Court is constraint to dispose of the writ application with a direction to the University to examine the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Rai (Supra) and if it is found that the case of the petitioners are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Kant Rai (supra) the University will recommend the case of the petitioners for regularization and the State is obliged to take appropriate decision in relation to the claim of the petitioners for regularization in the light of decision in Amar Kant Rai. Final decision on the claim of the petitioner for regularization will be taken by the respondent University as well as the State within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The University is also required to consider the case for grant of consequential benefits to the petitioners, considering the fact that the Patna High Court CWJC No.21242 of 2014(2) dt.01-10-2018 5/5 petitioners have worked in the University for more than three decades.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Banti/ T.Kr.
U