- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15770 of 2005 3 20.11.2008 Sanjiv Kumar, S/o Sri Tapeshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Mohalla Saristabad (M.I.Lane), P.S.Gardanibagh, District-Patna (Town Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Deprtment, Old, Secretariat, Patna 3. The Secretary, Rural Development (R.E.O. & Panchayat Raj) Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Diector, Panchayat Raj, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The State Election Commission (through the State Election Commission), 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 6. The Secretary, State Election Commission 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 7. The Deputy Secretary, State Election Commission 3rd Floor,Sone Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 8. Bihar Staff Selection Commission (through Secretary), Road No.10, Shekhpura, Patna (Town) ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate and Ajay Kumar Ambashtha, Advocate For the State : Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State Election: M/s K.B.Nath and Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocates Commission For Staff Selection : Mr Vipin Kumar, Advocate Commission -------- ] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the State Election Commission and learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission. A short point has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner’s case stands on same footing as that of one Daizy Rai, whose writ petition bearing CWJC No.3569 of 2000 has been disposed of on 14.8.2008 with a direction to take final decision in respect of the writ petitioner in terms of policy guidelines of the Government prepared for absorption of temporary or ad hoc employees. The order in the case of Daizy Rai shows that the State - 2 - Election Commission by a letter dated 8.8.2008 has recommended the names of such temporary employees who have been working for ten years in the Commission and the name of Daizy Rai was at serial no.4 of the list of ten persons. The matter was pending before the competent authority for final decision and hence, this Court vide order dated 14.8.2008 contained in Annexure-19 directed the concerned authority to take final decision with respect to that petitioner in terms of the policy guidelines of the Government within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that name of this petitioner is at serial no.1 of the same list sent by the State Election Commission by letter dated 8.8.2008 and petitioner also seeks a similar direction that final decision should be taken by the competent authority within four months. Considering the nature of the petitioner’s grievance, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned officials to take final decision in respect of this petitioner also in similar terms as indicated in Annexure-19, the judgment dated 14.8.2008 passed in the case of Daizy Rai. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)