IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5527 of 1997 LALDEO ROY, S/O LATE JAGESHWAR ROY, R/O VILLAGE KHAJUAHATTA, P.S. DARIYAPUR, DISTRICT CHAPRA. ...........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIRPUR, SUPAUL. 5.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BARRAJ CIRCLE, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIRPUR, SUPAUL. 6.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEAD WORKS DIVISION, BIRPUR, SUPAUL. ..........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 13.05.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. The issue raised in this writ application as with regard to promotion of the petitioner and its cancellation while working in the work charge establishment in the Water Resources Department is no longer res integra, inasmuch as it has been held by this Court, there is no scope of promotion in work charge establishment. This Court would therefore not find any error in the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the respondents have clearly explained this aspect in 2 paragraph no. 2 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- 'That the prayer made in the writ petition to quash the order bearing memo no. 1773 dated 21.03.1997(Annexure- 13) whereby the promotion granted to the writ petitioer on the postof Correspondence Clerk has been cancelled and further prayer to restrain the authorities from reverting him to the post of Chowkidar and to direct them to make payment of salary to him, which is allowed to Correspondence Clerk and the grounds formulated in support thereof being wholly misconceived is fit to be rejected as the petitioner, who was a daily wage earner, was brought in the work charge establishment under the Head Works Divison of the Kosi Project, Birpur under office order bearing memo no. 772 dated 03.02.1971(Annexure- 1)however, his services were regularized in the said work charge establishment itself under office order bearing memo no. 4000 dated 02.12.1981 (Annexure-3) pursuant to a policy decision of the State Government contained in resolution no. 5712 dated 25.05.1978, in terms whereof all such work charge employes, who had completed five years or more in the work charge establishment on or before 01.04.1977, were directed to be regularized as is evident from letter no. 1661 dated 20th August, 1981(Annexure-2). Since the regularization of the petitioner and others pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government bearing resolution no. 5712 dated 25.05.1978 was made in the work charge establishment itself, they were not entitled for any promotion as no promotion is ever allowed to a work charge employee, which fact is evident from the letter no. 1661 dated 20th of August, 1981(Annexure-2)as even after the aforesaid regularization, the so called regularized employees were 3 to be paid from the establishment sub head of the work charge establishment and in this view of the matter no promotion could have been allowed to the petitioner on the class III post of correspondence clerk, however, it appears that the writ petitioner was allowed the said promotion under order bearing memo no. 277 dated 15.01.1996(Annexure-7) in view of the fact that he had prayed for being considered for said promotion by filing C.W.J.C NO. 4584 of 1992 on the ground that Sri Sushil Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 8 to the said writ case) was granted the said promotion under memo no. 815 dated 25.03.1992 and the Hon'ble Court having noticed the said fact under orders dated 30th of November, 1993 had directed the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner also for the said promotion and in compliance of the said order of the Hon'ble Court dated 30th of November, 1993 the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Corresponding Clerk and the authorities allowed the petitioner the said promotion under order bearing memo no. 277 dated 15.01.1996 ( Annexure-7) and thereafter posted him also as correspondence clerk under office order bearing memo no. 801 dated 02.03.1996 (Annexure-9). Having issued the promotion order the authorities realised their mistake that the work charge employees regularized pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government bearing no. 5712 dated 25.05.1978 were entitled to two time bound promotions as per policy decision fo the State Government bearing no. 1503 dated 27.03.1987, out of which one was already allowed to the petitioner under memo no. 3000 dated 18.08.1987, issued show cause notice bearing letter no. 6284 dated 11.11.1996 (Annexure-10) calling upon him to show cause as to why the promotion to the post of correspondence clerk be not cancelled. As the petitioner did not choose to respond to the said notice, reminder 4 bearing letter no. 6898 dated 14.12.1996 was also issued, in response whereto the petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 24.12.1996, which was duly considered by the authorities and under office order bearing no. 1772 dated 21.03.1997 the promotion of Sri Sushil Kumar Singh (respondent no. 8 to C.W.J.C NO. 4584/1992) on the post of correspondence clerk was cancelled and under memo no. 1773 dated 21.03.1997 (Annexure-13) the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Correspondence clerk was cancelled and as such the prayer to quash the said order contained in Annexure-13 being wholly misconceived and is fit to be rejected.' Thus from the reading of the aforementioned averments, it would be clear that only purpose for which the functioning of a work charge employee could count his previous service after he becomes a regular employee would be for the purposes of payment of pension as was clearly explained by the State Government in its circular issued by the Finance Department dated 27.03.1987 contained in Annexure-A. In the light of the aforementioned settled position both on fact and in law the complaint of the petitioner as against the impugned order of his being brought back to the post of Chowkidar in Work charge establishment does not require any 5 interference. In the result, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)