IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.62 of 2010 1. Arun Kumar S/O Babu Lal Mahto R/O Vill.- Jabbabipur, P.S. Sitamarhi, Dumra Court, Distt.- Sitamarhi 2. Ram Bali Mahto S/O Ram Bilash Mahto R/O Vill.- Muradpur Purbari Tola, P.S. Dumra Court, Distt.- Sitamarhi 3. Lilanand Mandal S/O Jauli Mandal R/O Vill.- Kabaiya P.S.- Bousi Basaity, Distt.- Araria 4. Mahendra Prasad Singh S/O Gulabchand Mandal R/O Vill.- Kabaiya, P.S. Bousi Basaity, Distt.- Araria 5. Tej Narayan Singh S/O Bausdeo Singh R/O Vill.- Miyari, P.S. Sarairanjan, Distt.- Samastipur 6. Shankar Thakur S/O Anup Lal Thakur R/O Vill.- Sadipur, P.S. Bangra, Distt.- Samastipur 7. Suresh Singh S/O Laxmi Singh R/O Vill.- Mau, P.S. Vidyapat Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur 8. Nand Kishore Mandal S/O Praikshan Mandal R/O Vill.- Narma, P.S.- Hathauri, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 9. Bisheshwar Yadav S/O Chulahi Yadav R/O Vill.- Madhopur, P.S. Simri, Distt.- Darbhanga 10. Gopal Rai S/O Thakri Rai R/O Vill.- Bangama, P.S. Brgama, Distt.- Saharsa 11. Madhav Chaturvedi S/O Late Jitendra Kumar Chaturvedi P.S. Sahpur Patwari, Distt.- Samastipur 12. Raghubir Kamti S/O Asha Kamti R/O Vill.- Atarbail, P.S. Singhwara, Distt.- Darbhanga 13. Bimal Kumar Mishra S/O Late Pt. Jai Kant Mishra R/O Vill.- Chhatona, P.S................................... 14. Ramnath Sahni S/O Late Mushar Sahani R/O Vill.- P.S. Chakmahesi, Distt.- Samastipur 15. Ramakant Prasad S/O Sampat Rai R/O Vill.- Harpur Pusa, P.S. Pusa, Distt.- Samastipur 16. Chhedi Mandal S/O Late Fuleshwar Mandal R/O Vill.- Shyamli, P.S. Falka, Distt.- Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Deptt. Bishwaswariya Bhawan, Patna 2. The Engineer-In-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Bishwaswariya Bhawan, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Deptt., Bishwaswariya Bhawan, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Darbhanga 5. The Executive Engineer, P.H.Division, Samastipur ---------------------------------- 4. 19.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2 The petitioners claim to have been appointed on daily wage in between 1981-1982. They further claim to have been brought into work charge establishment in 1987-1988.Their further claim is that on completion of five years in the work charge establishment under a circular dated 22.10.1984 they were entitled to be inducted into the regular establishment. Further under Memo No. 1344 dated 4.2.1949 adopted by a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in 1950, persons brought into work charge establishment and so continued beyond 12 months in a year were required to be made permanent. To the contrary they were given a show cause notice on 13.4.2002 for reversion to their status of daily wager. The contention on their behalf thus is that the question of their reversion to daily wage does not arise and they are entitled to be inducted into the regular establishment. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It states that after their reversion to daily wage and pursuant to the creation of posts their individual cases have been considered for absorption in the regular establishment and it has been done to the extent possible of vacancies as detailed in para 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit. The petitioners appear to have been given a show cause notice on 13.4.2002 that their induction into work charge establishment itself was contrary to law. Keeping in mind that they had been appointed initially as daily wager it had been decided to allow them to retain that status divesting them only of their work charge status. Option had been invited that if they desired to continue as daily wager, stating that if no 3 reply was received it would be deemed that they had nothing to say in the matter and an appropriate decision shall be taken accordingly. There is no pleading in the writ petition that this show cause notice was ever challenged by the petitioners before any appropriate forum. There is an averment in para 14 that the petitioners had filed their objection to this notice but no date of such objection much less a copy of the same has been placed on record. In a writ proceeding the primary evidence are documents and on a given set of facts a bald pleading may not suffice. The Court therefore holds that the petitioners never objected to the show cause notice dated 13.4.2002.The respondents therefore had the option to either remove them from not only the work charge status but also the employment. The benefit of daily wage was however allowed to the petitioners. In that factual position the contention of the petitioners with regard to any circular dated 22.10.1984 for regularisation on completion of five years in the work charge capacity or under Memo no. 1344 dated 4.2.1049 does not arise. Much less is the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 836 of 1997 stated to have been affirmed before the Supreme Court applicable in the facts of the case. If the induction into the work charge establishment itself was contrary to law the question of any benefit being founded on such illegal induction does not arise. If the respondents have then proceeded to treat the petitioners as daily wager and considered their case for absorption by constitution of a committee and for grant of the benefit subject to the reservation roster and availability of vacancy as detailed into counter affidavit to the extent possible, the Court does not find any error in their actions to warrant interference. It was for the petitioners to have been more vigilant and pursue their remedies appropriately in pursuance of the show cause 4 dated 13.4.2002 if they wished to avail the benefit of a claim for induction into work charge establishment as is presently sought to be urged. The Court does accede to the submission on behalf of those petitioners who have not been found acceptable for lack of vacancy that if an advertisement is published their case may be considered in accordance with law when issues of age relaxation and weightage for past work experience etc. are expected to be appropriately considered with regard to them as a matter of policy by the State. The writ application is therefore disposed with regard to such of them who have been absorbed as mentioned in the counter affidavit but is dismissed with observations with regard to those who have not been absorbed for reason of lack of vacancy. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)