IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2997 of 2009 Kameshwar Das . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 11.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner who is stated to be a Cook in the Remand Home at Bhagalpur is aggrieved by the order dated 21.5.2007 declining to regularise his services. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 1227 of 2001.The order dated 21.12.2006 adequately noticed that he was working on daily wages since 6.7.1980. No sanctioned post was available for appointment and neither was there any other Cook working in the Remand Home. During pendency of the writ petition a post came to be sanctioned. In light of a policy decision of the State Government to regularise taken in 1998, and as modified in 2005, the Court directed consideration of his claim which has been rejected by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable as it does not consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization as directed by the Court, in terms of the policy decisions, noticed in the order. Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that there existed no sanctioned post of Cook when the petitioner was appointed. A policy decision has now been taken to outsource work of Cook in the Remand Home and therefore the petitioner could not be considered for regularisation any more. Peculiar is the manner of functioning of the respondents. They set up a Remand Home. Naturally there shall be inmates in the Remand 2 Home. If the respondents were not obliged to furnish food to the inmates there was no occasion for them to appoint a Cook. Obviously they were satisfied that it was their obligation to furnish food to the inmates. If a new Remand Home had been started the appointment of the petitioner on daily wages as a Cook is well understandable in the exigency of the work. It may have continued in that capacity for a year or two till a regular appointment was not made after sanction of the post. No sooner that a post was sanctioned and regular appointment made the service condition of such a regular appointee would have been far better with a fixed salary inclusive of a host of other service benefits. Avoiding that, the respondents proceeded to make a daily wage appointment. There are no allegations of any illegal or irregular procedure adopted while appointing the petitioner on daily wages. Obviously it was to the advantage of the respondents as they had nothing to pay the petitioner except daily wages even while their purpose for providing food to the inmates was served. Having opened a Remand Home in 1980 the post came to be sanctioned in 2004 vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition dealt with at paragraph 6 of the pleadings. The impugned order acknowledges the creation of a sanctioned post. The counter affidavit appears to be a bundle of contradictions when at paragraph 7 it states that there is no sanctioned post while in paragraph 10 declines to answer a specific assertion for the creation of a sanctioned post, the answer given is that it has been decided to be outsourced. It were as if virtually the respondents were hedging around issues trying to find a solution to somehow or other deny relief to the petitioner. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner was a daily wage appointee. His status and nature to the claim obviously had 3 to be limited. A post has been sanctioned. If a sanctioned post were to be filled up by equal opportunity to all eligible undoubtedly the petitioner shall have to stand in line. Presently there are no adverse allegations with regard to his discharge of duties. The direction of the writ Court to consider his claim for regularisation in the background of a policy decision is not in dispute. The fact that the respondents may have decided to outsource the work of a Cook is their discretion undoubtedly efficiency shall be there in an outsourced work. But, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner is admittedly working on daily wages since 1980, there has been no complaints against him, there is a sanctioned post available but it is not proposed to be filled up in accordance with law, the respondents propose to outsource, there is no justification for them not to continue with the services of the petitioner initially on such terms and conditions as they may have for outsourcing. Needless to state that any continuance of the petitioner in that capacity, shall naturally depend on the scheme for outsourcing on all its aspects and shall not vest in him a claim of perpetuity for continuance. The impugned order dated 21.5.2007 is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)