IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12207 of 2006 Saroj Kumar, son of Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, resident of village and post office Punas, P.S. Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur, presently residing at Hindustan Pharma, Shahi Complex, Tilak Maidan, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur 4. The Princiopal, Government Inter College (Zila School), Muzaffarpur 5. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna ……… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Kumar,Adv. For the Respondents: M/s Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.15 with Bipin Kumar,A.C. to S.C.15 ------------ 4. 03/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of wages from December, 1992 till 20th June, 2006 during which period he continued to work as part time Instructor in Automobile Trade in Government Inter College (Zila School), Muzaffarpur. A further prayer has been made to set aside letter of termination of the petitioner’s engagement, as contained in Annexure-5 dated 20.6.2006. Contention of the petitioner is that he continued in the School till 20th June, 2006 uninterruptedly but he has not been paid his - 2 - wages from December, 1992 onwards. It is also contended that petitioner has continued as part time Instructor for about fifteen years and therefore, respondents were obliged to consider his case for regularization/absorption on permanent basis. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that after appointment of whole time Instructors, directions had already been issued by the Department to all the District Education Officers to disengage all part time Instructors in view of the fact that full time Instructors have already been appointed by the Government in different Institutions. Letter issued by the Government in this regard has been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-B dated 30.1.2003. It is stated that in spite of this order, petitioner was allowed to continue in the Institution by the Principal. Since this letter had been issued on 30.1.2003, remuneration of the petitioner was stopped and ultimately Principal, on the basis of the said letter, disengaged petitioner with effect from 20.6.2006. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the then Principal of the School in which it - 3 - is stated that he had not received any instruction from the concerned District Education Officer as a follow up of said Government letter dated 30.1.2003 and therefore, he could not disengage the petitioner earlier and only after receipt of fresh orders from the Director, Secondary Education dated 19.5.2006, the then Incharge Principal disengaged petitioner with effect from 20.6.2006. This fact was communicated to the Director, Secondary Education by the Incharge Principal of the School vide his letter dated 21.6.2006. Thus, it is clear that petitioner continued to work as part time Instructor between the period December, 1992 to 20th June, 2006 for no fault of his. It appears that due to communication gap in the official channel, direction of the Department contained in letter dated 30.1.2003 was not received by the then Principal of the Institution. Hence, petitioner is apparently entitled for the wages of the period he worked in the Institution as part time Instructor till 20th June, 2006. The claim of the petitioner for wages of the said period also stands admitted by Annexure-2, a letter issued by the Principal of the Institution to - 4 - the District Education Officer. To that extent, the writ application is fit to be allowed. So far as reinstatement of services of the petitioner is concerned, this Court does not find merit in the said contention of the petitioner. From the Government instructions dated 30.1.2003, it appears that regular Instructors have been appointed in different Institutions and on that ground part time Instructors were directed to be disengaged. Therefore, petitioner cannot be directed to be continued in service. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed in part and the respondents are directed to pay the wages of the petitioner for the work he actually performed in the Institution till 20th June, 2006 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Respondents are also given liberty to hold an enquiry as to on account of whose fault, petitioner could not be disengaged pursuant to said Annexure-B dated 30.1.2003 and realize the wages of the petitioner which is paid to him for the period 30.1.2003 to 20.6.2006 from the salary of the concerned officer, who may be found responsible for the - 5 - same after complying with Principles of Natural Justice. So far as payment of wages earlier period of the petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that he worked during that period validly and therefore, the said amount has to be paid from the Government Exchequer. All payments in this regard have to be made to the petitioner within three months, as directed above. Since petitioner has worked in the Institution as part time Instructor in Automobile Trade for almost 18 years and has gained experience and validity of his initial engagement as such has not been disputed by the respondents, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment in accordance with law whenever they take up the exercise for appointment on the post of such Automobile Instructor or on similar posts in any of the Institutions and shall give preference to the petitioner in view of his experience with due relaxation of age to him. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)