IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3507 of 2004 1. BHAGYA NARAYAN SINGH S/O RADHIKA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE ASAGARANPUR, P.S.- BOJRIYA, P.S. SARAI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES AS PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. 2. RAM ISHWAR BHAGAT S/O LATE RAM PRATAP BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE- GOABHAGWANPUR, P.O.- BHAGWANPUR, P.S.- KUDHANI, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. ANIL KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM SANCHI THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE +P.O.- PURUSOTAMPUR, P.S. MANIYARI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES AS PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. RANBIR BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE JAMUN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. RAJRAM PAKAULI, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. MOHIT RAI S/O LATE PARIKSHAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE- JHAPHADRONPUR, P.O.- JHAPAHA, P.S.- AHIYAPUR, P.S.- KUDHANI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 6. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGE- RAMCHANDRA DOHAJI, P.O.- BOARIYA, P.S.- SARAY, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 7. ABHIRAM CHAUDHARY S/O LATE LAKSHMI KANT CHOUDHARY R/O VILLAGE- AND P.O.- MANIK CHAUK, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 8. JAGDISH MAHTO S/O LATE DAHUR MAHTO R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BARIYARPUR, P.S.- SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 9. MAHESHWAR SAH S/O LATE JAILAL SAH R/O VILLAGE JHAPAHA GANGHTI, P.O. JHAPHA, P.S. AHIYAPUR, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 10. MAHENDRA SAH S/O LATE MACHCHU SAH R/O VILLAGE- GOVINDPUR CHAPRA, P.O.- PACHRUKHI, P.S.- PIYAR, MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT WORKING ON DAILY WAGES PUMP OPERATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 11. DINESH THAKUR S/O SHRI RAMJI THAKUR R/O MOHALLA- CHANDWARA HAJJAMTOLI, P.O. PAKKI SARAI P.S. SADAR, MUZAFFARPUR 12. BASANT KUMAR SINHA S/O SHRI CHITTRANGUPTA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- DIWAN ROAD, P.O.- AMGOLA, MUZAFFARPUR 13. KISHORE KUMAR S/O SHRI VISHWANATH PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- ZILA SCHOOL PANI TANKI CHOWK, P.S.- MITHANPUR, MUZAFFARPUR 14. SIVJI SINGH S/O LATE NIRSU SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- DUMARI KALA, P.S.- MAJORGANJ, MUZAFFARPUR 15. RAJ KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BINDA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. DARSUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 16. SATRUGHAN BHAGAT S/O LATE SUNDAR BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE- P.O.- AMRAKA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 17. NAND KISHORE RAI S/O SHRI KRISHNA RAI R/O VILLAGE- FATHEPUR, P.O.- MIRJAPUR, MUZAFFARPUR ………….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA ………Respondents Ist Set 3. THE MUZAFFARPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROGUH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, MUZAFFARPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS, MUZAFFARPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUZAFFARPUR …………..Respondents 2nd Set ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. For the Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation : Mr. Avadhesh Kumar, Adv. ----------- 9. 30.06.2011 This writ petition has been filed inter alia for a direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners on the vacant sanctioned posts of pump Khalasi/Pump Operators in which capacity they have been working continuously since early 1980’s i.e. over 25 years now. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision reported in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari 2010 (1) Supreme Today 262, which is an elaboration of the earlier decision rendered in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, whereby the services of the petitioner therein were directed to be considered for regularization as a one time measure. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation on the other hand has filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that the service of the petitioner could not be regularized because of the ban of the State Government on fresh appointments in all Municipal Corporations as contained in memo no. 3939 dated 20.11.1999 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). He, however, accepts that there are sufficient vacant sanctioned posts available against which petitioners could be considered and in fact the respondent corporation itself has been bringing this matter to the notice of the State Government. He refers to the corporation letter no. 386 dated 8.4.2006 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) from which it transpires that the corporation had already taken a decision for regularization and that the services of 227 daily wage workers could be regularized. More importantly, it is stated in para 4 of the said letter that this is not a case of appointment rather it is a case of regularization of the employees who were already rendering service. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the ban against appointments as contained in the aforesaid Annexure-A had been taken only as a temporary measure and since then over a decade has already elapsed which should no longer be considered as being in force. This court is of the opinion that the so called ban on fresh appointments should not be allowed to come in the way of regularization of the petitioners, moreso when the corporation itself is in need of hands for proper functioning and in view of the further fact that after considerable number of years of service the petitioners are on the verge of retirement. The concerned authority shall therefore take expeditious steps and consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation against the available sanctioned posts, disposing of the matter by speaking order. No one appears on behalf of the State nor any counter affidavit filed on its behalf even though sufficient opportunity has been granted since as far back as by order dated 31.3.2004. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )