IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4605 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR JAISWAL S/O LATE NAGESHWAR PRASAD JAISWAL R/O MOHALLA- MAUWAR LANE, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS KHALASI IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. PATNA WEST DIVISION, RAJWANSHI NAGAR, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHWARIYA BHAWAN, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG (BAILY ROAD), PATNA 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHRAIYA BHAWAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG (BAILY ROAD), PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, BISHWESHRAIYA BHAWAN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG (BAILY ROAD), PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA CIRCLE, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, PATNA WEST, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Alok Kumar, AC to G.A. I. --------------- 2. 8.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as a Plumber Mistry on daily wages in July, 1985 till March, 1996. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13125 of 1992 with a claim for regularization on a Class-IV post. A Division Bench of this Court disposed the application on 20.5.1993 relying on State of Haryana Vs. Piyara Singh (A.I.R. 1992 SC 2130), with directions to consider his claim 2 for regularization in accordance with law. The petitioner states that he was then regularized by an order dated 19.3.1996 under the pen of the Superintending Engineer as a Plumber Mistry in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200/-. It is submitted that he was reverted to the status of a daily wager in the work charged establishment by order dated 24.6.2000. It is his further case that this order of reversion was stayed by the Chief Engineer on 23.10.2000. The petitioner continued on his regularized post till a fresh show cause notice dated 17.1.2003 was issued stating that he was appointed in the work charge establishment on 19.3.2006 and to show cause as to why he not be reverted to a daily wage not having been appointed in between 1.8.1985 to 27.7.1985. The show cause stated that if he did not submit any reply or it was not found satisfactory, he would stand reverted. He simultaneously also filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 20.1.2003 running into 84 papers where he narrated all the necessary facts. The petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5790 of 2004 challenging the same. The writ petition was disposed off with several other analogous cases referring the issue to a three man committee. The petitioner then filed a 3 fresh detailed representation before the committee on 19.8.2006 running into more than 34 papers stating out of facts with regard to his earlier regularization, stay of the same and that matters were pending at this stage. Without considering the same, a final order has been passed on 28.11.2006 regularizing him on a newly created and sanctioned post of Khalasi in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2600- 60-3200/- with prospective effect. Formal orders to that effect were then issued on 29.11.2006. It is submitted that the scale which the petitioner was drawing as a Plumber Mistry after regularization was Rs. 2650-4000/- . He not only stands to loose his pay scale but also the benefits of the regularization done as far back as on 19.3.1996. Learned counsel for the State makes the usual prayer to file a counter affidavit. He also submits from Annexure 11/A to the supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2002 that no final decision appears to have been taken with regard to the petitioner in so far as the regularization is concerned as appears from the recitals contained in the same. To this Court, issues appear primarily one of facts at this stage. If the petitioner had been regularized on 19.3.1996 and the order for his 4 reversion to daily wage issued on 24.6.2000 had been stayed on 23.10.2000 and matters remain at this stage when the fresh show cause notice for reversion dated 17.1.2003 came to be issued, facts which the petitioner explicitly brought to the attention of the respondents in his representations dated 20.1.2003 and 19.8.2006, clearly the order for fresh regularization dated 28.11.2006/29.11.2006 is non-speaking in nature and does not appear to be taking into consideration all relevant materials with regard to the claims of the petitioner. The order dated 19.3.1996 at Annexure-2 explicitly states that he was being absorbed on the post of Plumber Mistry in the pay scale of Rs. 825- 1200/-. If this order never came to be annulled or was sought to be annulled but operation of the annulment was stayed and remained so till issuance of the fresh show cause dated 17.1.2003, any proposed annulment on 19.6.2000 obviously merged into the fresh show cause notice dated 17.1.2003 when the order dated 19.6.2000 remain stayed by virtue of the order dated 23.10.2000. If the petitioner continued as a regularized Plumber Mistry for all these years, naturally he stands much to loose by the impugned order dated 28.11.2006, directing 5 fresh regularization with prospective effect on a lower post with a lower pay scale. He stands to loose the benefit of long years of service, seniority etc. All these were relevant aspects to be kept in mind by the three man committee while considering his case. The detailed nature of his representation with facts and documents apparently finds no reflection in the order for fresh regularization dated 28.11.2006. This Court holds that the order dated 28.11.2006 is un- reasoned, cryptic and non-speaking in nature in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the writ petition is being disposed without a counter affidavit and to the Court, at this stage the matters appear to be involving issue of facts, it is disposed off with the following directions:- (a) Let the petitioner file a fresh representation along with a copy of the present order enclosing copies of his earlier representations mentioned in the present order along with the enclosures. (b) the concerned committee is then required to consider his claims in light of the same. (c) if the committee is satisfied that his earlier regularization dated 19.3.1996 never came to be annulled, the committee shall proceed to pass 6 appropriate orders ensuring continuity in service for all purposes including salary to the petitioner. (d) if the committee is satisfied otherwise it is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all the contentions of the petitioner so that the judicial review of the order, if necessitated may be facilitated. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)