IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6527 of 2009 GAJENDRA NATH UPADHYAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 21.5.2009 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the State. While the expression “samayojan” will definitely connote adjustment, the grievance of the petitioner as against such adjustment in the order dated 20.12.2006 as contained in Annexure 10 is that while he has been adjusted in regular establishment only with effect from 1.12.2006, persons junior to him were already brought in regular establishment by an order dated 1.11.1994 by way of absorbing (parinat) them in the regular establishment. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this use of expression of “samayojan” and/or “parinat” should not have weighed as against the entitlement of the petitioner because now juniors to him will be treated to be part of regular establishment with effect from 1.11.1994, whereas the same benefit would be admissible to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.2006. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner may have justifiable ground if he can prove that persons exactly similar as him have already been regularized in the year 1994. This Court, however, would not find such claim of the petitioner substantiated him from Annexure 2 because there is no 2 common gradation list where this court would find the person covered by Annexure 2 and the petitioner covered by Annexure 10 were working in the same establishment and the petitioner was senior to all those persons mentioned in Annexure 2. This thus is a matter of enquiry and must be conducted by the Head of the Department after giving notice to all such persons including those covered by Annexure 2, who may be adversely affected on account of the petitioner being made senior to them. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Engineer-in-Chief, the concerned Head of Department of Public Health Engineering Department, to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take a final decision. It is made clear that if it is found by the Engineer-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. that the petitioner has been made to lose only on account of discrimination among the same set of the persons and the case of the petitioner stands of the same footing as those persons covered by Annexure 2, it will be also open for the Engineer-in- Chief either to date back to the date of regularization of the petitioner with effect from 1.11.1994 or redraw the whole scheme of regularization by bringing even juniors covered by order dated 1.11.1994 to the date of 1.12.2006. The petitioner therefore is directed to file a compact representation to Engineer-in-Chief. In the event, such a representation is filed, the authority, the Engineer-in-Chief shall address himself in the question raised therein and pass a firm 3 and reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. It is however made clear that this Court, in absence of persons named in Annexure 2, who are not parties to this writ, has expressed no final opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and thus it would be open for the Engineer-in- Chief to take his independent decision strictly in accordance with law. Application stands disposed of finally with the aforesaid observations and directions. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )