IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5765 of 2010 1. Ram Nath Sah S/O Late Ram Pat Sah, R/O Village - Madapur Chaubey, P.O - Kharauna, District - Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. The State Or Bihar Through Secretary, P.W.D., Road, Bihar, Patna- 800001. 2. The Engineer In Chief,P.W.D., Road, Bihar, Patna- 800001. 3. The Chief Engineer , P.W.D., Road, Bihar, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintending Engineer , P.W.D., Road, Bihar, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Road Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Assistnat Engineer, National Highway Road Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur. 8. The District Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur. ---------------------------------- 3. 09.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The relief claimed in this application is for payment of salary stopped by the order of the District Magistrate as far back as 27.8.1998 without any show cause. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is an employee of PWD Roads Department so appointed on 31.12.1996.Thereafter the Service Book was also opened. The opening of the Service Book is but evidence of confirmation and regularisation of his services. The District Magistrate therefore had no authority to pass any orders for stoppage of his salary and it was only the controlling department i.e. PWD which was competent to take any action against him. The petitioner is not only entitled to his salary but is also entitled to be allowed to continue in service. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5.The first objection is of gross inordinate delay in preferring the claim. The second contention is of an illegal appointment and that 2 departmental and criminal proceedings have been initiated against the appointing authority. That the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled as far back as 1998. The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 31.12.1996 in no uncertain terms states that he was being temporarily appointed for a period of one month only. This was obviously in the exigency of the work. No order has been brought on record by the petitioner by which the services of the petitioner had been extended at any stage much less inducted into regular establishment. It is not considered necessary to go into the question as to under what manner the petitioner continued in service in view of the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit with regard to the departmental and criminal proceeding against the appointing authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also urged that those appointed with him in the same transaction have been retained in service causing hostile discrimination. The allegations of discrimination have to be specific with names and other necessary details. No such material has been placed in the writ petition. Even otherwise there can be no claim for parity in illegality. If others have wrongly continued in service on basis of a limited appointment and have been retained in service the law shall not countenance it and it will not give a cause of action to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that the manner in which he was appointed and continued in service have all been considered in AIR 1992 SC 789 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi) noticing at paragraph 15 as follows:- “15………The courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the 3 relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchanges for years……….” The next contention that procedure for termination under Article 311 of the Constitution has not been followed has to be stated to be rejected. That protection is available to only regular government servants and not to others. There is no explanation in the writ petition for this long inordinate delay in having preferred the writ application nearly 12 years later except for stating that the petitioner represented before the Chief Minister in 2006 and before the District Magistrate in 2008 whose very authority he questions in the writ petition. Whether it be merits of the claim or the question of delay the writ application is held to be not maintainable on both grounds. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)