IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6996 of 2008 1. SUBODH NANDAN JHA, SON OF LATE TULA NAND JHA, RESIDENT OF C/O B.N. JHA, ANAND LOK APARTMENT, 303 LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MARKET, WEST PATEL NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA-23, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANABAD. 2. JAGARNATH RAM, SON OF LATE GULAB RAM, RESIDENT OF OFFICER’S SECTION BUILDING, OFFICER’S HOSTEL, BLOCK ‘A’, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANABAD. 3. NAND LAL PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHIVJEE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAGO BIGHA, P.O. RAMGHAT, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANABAD. 4. LAKSHMI KANT DUBEY, SON OF SRI SRIKANT DUBEY, RESIDENT OF EAST PATEL NAGAR, ROAD NO. 2, NEAR PANCH MANDIR, P.O. + P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA-23, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANABAD. 5. SHIVJEE PRASAD, SON OF RAMGATI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHULI, P.S. DIDARGANJ, P.O. KOTHIYA, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT PEON, GARDEN DIVISION, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 6. KAMAL SAO, SON OF LATE RITHA SAO, RESIDENT OF OFFICER’S BLOCK-‘B’, BAILEY ROAD, NEAR GARDANIBAGH, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHNAABAD. 7. UMA SHANKAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE RAGHU SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BETAURA, P.O. ANISHABAD, P.S. BEUR, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT PEON, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA. 8. SRI RAM NATH, SON OF MATI LAL, RESIDENT OF RAVI CHOWK, P.O. SHASTRI NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA, AT PRESENT PEON, BUILDING DIVISION, GAYA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWASHARIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWASHARIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWASHARIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH), BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BISHWASHARIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOUTH BIHAR CIRCLE, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PUNAICHAK, PATNA. 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BUILDING CIRCLE, GAYA. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANABAD. 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GARDEN DIVISION, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DIVISION, GAYA. ---------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS 2 2 19.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners were working as Class IV employees in the Building Construction Department in different districts of Bihar (Patna, Gaya and Jehanabad), since 1977. Some persons who were juniors to the petitioners were terminated after they were regularized. This Court quashed the order of their termination as a result of which, persons who were junior to the petitioners’ inasmuch as they were appointed later than the petitioners were given the benefit of regularization. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the Superintending Engineer, Patna regularized the eight petitioners before this Court by letter dated 13.11.2007. After the order of regularization was passed, Annexure- 9 dated 15.4.2008 was issued staying/cancelling their regularization. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have been working from 1977 right up to 2007 on daily wages and thereafter they were regularized considering that juniors to the petitioners have been regularized by the orders of this Court passed in CWJC No. 7741 of 1999, disposed of on 18.2.2005. The ground for cancellation of their regularization is the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. This Court by several orders has already directed that persons who have worked on daily wages over a long period of time should be considered by the department for regularization in terms of the judgment delivered in Uma 3 Devi’s (supra) case. In this case obviously the petitioners have worked for more than 30 years, and as such the Superintending Engineer is directed to take into account their length of service on daily wages and regularize them in accordance with guidelines laid down in Uma Devi (supra) case as a one time measure. The exercise of regularization or appointment of such persons ought to be considered as expeditiously as possible. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)