IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5255 of 2005 1. JAIMALA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI PRAMHANSH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRWAN, P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN. 2. ARUN KUMAR UPADHYAY @ VIDYARTHI, SON OF SHRI ISHWARI DUTT UPADHYAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAREEPATI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN. 3. KRISHNAKANT SINGH, SON OF SHRI BIKARMA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAREEPATI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN. 4. MANOJ KUMAR SAH, SON OF SHRI NAND KISHORE SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAWARIA TOLA RAMAN RAI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN. 5. DEVENDRA KUMAR, SON OF LATE MURARI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARKA GAON, P.S. BHAGWANPUR HAT, DISTRICT SIWAN. 6. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM BILAS PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASANTPUR, P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN. 7. RAMCHANDRA THAKUR, SON OF LATE HUBBA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIPAH, P.O. AND P.S. BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SIWAN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS *********** 4 18.1.2011 The petitioners were appointed as daily wages workers in the Health Department in the district of Siwan. They have been agitating their right to be regularized against Class IV posts from the year 1995. They along with other similarly situated had moved this Court for a direction to regularize their service vide CWJC No. 13887 of 2003 which was disposed of on 27.4.2004 (Annexure-14) wherein the Court directed 2 that the petitioners should file their representations and the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer should consider whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization in view of an earlier decision of this Court passed in CWJC No. 4941 of 195 (Shankar Prasad Gupta Vs. The of Bihar & Ors.). After the order of this Court (Annexure-14), the petitioners filed their representations which have been disposed of vide Annexures 18 and 19. The reasons given by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer for rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization is that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages for a limited period and that there was no sanction for the appointment of the petitioners on daily wages from any higher authority. With respect to the case referred to by the Court, it appears that the Chief Minister and the Health Minister had directed that the daily wages workers, Gopalganj should be regularized as a result of which the order of regularization was issued. There is no such direction of the 3 Chief Minister or the Health Minister with respect to daily wagers of the district of Siwan in the Health Department. The petitioners submit that at least three persons similarly situated have been regularized by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. In the impugned order it has been stated by the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer that a show cause notice has been issued to them for terminating their services. According to the petitioners this notice is nothing but a piece of paper work and the regularized employees are still continuing to work at their place of postings. The Supreme in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has laid down certain criteria with respect to regularization of employees. Paragraph 53 of the said judgment deals with this aspect of the matter. It has been said that the State Government should take a decision for purposes of regularization of employees working for ten years or more on a duly sanctioned post if the appointment was 4 irregular and not illegal as a one-time measure. Therefore, the decision for regularization of the petitioners would depend on the decision of the State Government in this respect. The petitioners can, if they are so advised, bring the decision of the Supreme Court to the authorities concerned for a decision regarding their regularization if they come within the criteria laid down in paragraph 53 of the judgment. This writ application is thus, disposed of. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)