IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13973 of 2006 RAMJEE SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupak Kumar. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh. ----- 4/ 25.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I.A. No. 5870 of 2008 has been filed challenging an order dated 12.02.2004 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for absorption on the post of Tax Collector. Upon hearing counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the issues involved in this writ application are integrally connected with the same. The I.A. application is allowed. The present controversy reflects a sorry administrative state of affairs in the respondent corporation. It is perhaps symptomatic of the malaise that affects it reflective on its functioning. Official orders were issued on 28.01.1977 appointing the petitioner as a Guard in the corporation on a daily wage for 30 days only. It is not the case of the petitioner in his pleadings that this appointment was in accordance with law. Neither does the appointment letter reflect so. Notwithstanding that this appointment was 2 only for 30 days which ended with the month of February, 1977, he continued to work in the corporation. This fact is acknowledged by the respondent corporation. Based on such continuation sans authority of law, the petitioner then came to be appointed on contract basis as a Tax Collector. If the appointment was contractual, it had to be limited in time. Perhaps, this was intentionally not incorporated in the order dated 09.11.1984 for the benefit of the petitioner and for the benefit of the person, who issued the order. On 18.01.1986 followed an order of temporary appointment of the petitioner on the post of Guard. The rigmarole being indulged in between the petitioner and respondent corporation is too apparent. He is appointed as a Guard in the corporation and yet he is also appointed on contract basis as Tax Collector and then regularized as a Guard. The regularization/absorption on the post of Guard dated 18.01.1986 was conditional, in anticipation of approval of the corporation. The petitioner either by his pleadings or documents has placed no material on record that even the status as a Guard came to be approved by the corporation subsequently. Be that as it may, it is his case that he continued to discharge duties as a Tax Collector in pursuance of the order dated 09.11.1984 and that he 3 was not paid his remuneration in law. Accordingly, he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1463 of 2001 when the Court on 02.02.2001 directed the respondents to consider his representation. The order dated 12.02.2004 followed. That this order was never served upon the petitioner is more than apparent from the fact that when the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 1556 of 2001 for non- compliance of the order in C.W.J.C. No. 1463 of 2001, the respondents passed an order dated 21.02.2004 paying him the arrears on the post of Tax Collector, but never disclosed that they had passed any order dated 12.02.2004 rejecting his claim for absorption/regularization on the post of Tax Collector. This Court notices from the order dated 12.02.2004 that the allegations are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Tax Collector by the Executive Officer when the Administrator or the Chief Executive Officer alone was competent to appoint a Tax Collector for the period 1.04.1985 to 11.02.2004 the petitioner had been paid additional allowance under Section 103 of the Bihar Service Code for duties as a Tax Collector. While the order dated 21.02.2004 passed by the respondent corporation states that the petitioner was being paid the minimum of the scale of Tax Collector after adjustment of the payments already made to him, 4 learned counsel for the petitioner laid much stress on the fact that in similar circumstances another person came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9992/2000 which was disposed off with liberty to file representation when he has been absorbed on the post of Tax Collector by order dated 13.09.2000. Likewise another person came to be absorbed by order dated 13.09.2005. He also relied upon certain other similar orders dated 30.09.2004 and 10.06.2006. The respondents to their counter affidavit have annexed an order of this Court dated 09.03.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 3441 of 2002 and its analogous cases wherein in similar circumstances directions given for absorption on the post of Tax Collector has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 628 of 2007. The aforesaid discussion is amply reflective of the illegality in the status of Tax Collector claimed by the petitioner. This is adequately reflected in the order of L.P.A. 628 of 2007. There can be no invocation of Article 14 to perpetuate illegality to demand similar treatment as that illegality granted to others. The petitioner was undoubtedly the beneficiary. The benefit was given to him by somebody, obviously for a consideration. 5 This Court is unable to hold that the petitioner validly in law came to be appointed as a Tax Collector. That he may have continued to discharge his duties as such from 1985 to 2004, even as per the respondent corporation itself, shall not cure the illegality when the induction was not in accordance with law. If the contention of the petitioner that notwithstanding the order dated 12.02.2004 he continues to discharge the duties of a Tax Collector be correct, this Court can only observe that it is a shocking state of affairs, perhaps explanatory of the conditions in which the corporation runs itself. In the given fact, it is not possible for this Court to issue any mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for absorption on the post of Tax Collector. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has worked from 1985 to 2004 as a Tax Collector. He fulfils the eligibility of being a matriculate and now has the experience of a Tax Collector. If he has been diligent in discharge his duties, a fact to be ascertained by the respondents themselves, and the figures of his tax collection are exemplary and commendable, the Court leaves it to the discretion of the respondents to consider his case in accordance with paragraph-44 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 6 Court in 2006(2) PLJR, 363(SC) in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi. The writ application is dismissed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)