IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18300 of 2011 1. Ram Kewal Sharma S/O Late Sidhi Singh R/O Vill.- Sahbajpur, P.O.- Korma, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Department Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, District- Jehanabad 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jehanabad 6. Zila Parishad, Jehanabad Through Its Chairman 7. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Jehanabad ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Kishore KumarThakur & Kumar Chandrashekhar For the State :- Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.C. to G.P. XXVI For the Zila Parishad :- Mr. Nikesh Kumar. ---- 4 20/12/2011 The foundation for making a claim for payment of salary to the petitioner is based upon the so called letter of appointment issued by the then Chairman of Zila Parishad, Jehanabad contained in annexure-1. Petitioner happens to be an ex-employee of the aforesaid Zila Parishad who retired years ago, to be précised in February, 1998. But despite superannuation more than 12 years ago, Chairman of the said Zila Parishad still found him suitable to shoulder certain - 2 - responsibility under the Zila Parishad as well as to assist her as her Personal Secretary. Letter of appointment contained in annexure-1 shows that the petitioner was being appointed on contract basis on a monthly income of Rs.6200/-. The date of annexure-1 is 17.06.2010. Despite such an appointment letter and the petitioner having worked in that capacity, he has not been paid what is rightfully due to him and, therefore, the present writ application. Submission of the learned counsel is that there are communications to show, originating at the level of the State Government, that there is some kind of lee-way given to the Zila Parishad to make appointment on contract basis looking at the short fall of hands and the exigency of service in the Zila Parishad. The State had no objection to such an appointment provided payments are to be made at the level of Zila Parishad and no obligation was created upon the State. In addition to that there is something to indicate that a broad guidelines or Rules was in the pipeline with regard to such an appointment. The stand of the respondents in the counter - 3 - affidavit is that the Chairman of Zila Parishad is not Zila Parishad under the Bihar Municipal Act. She just happens to be head of the body and a mere look at annexure-1 would show that this has been issued at the level of the Chairman without any approval, ratification or any decision taken at any point of time by the Zila Parishad as such. Any personal decision of the Chairman is not going to bind the Zila Parishad; muchless of the kind for which they are being dragged to the Court for payment to the petitioner. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that the petitioner had retired more than 12 years ago. He is almost 70 years of age and despite that the Chairman decided to engage him on the post, may be on contract basis, which falls foul even on the basic guideline issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms where there is a bar of engagement even on contract basis for a person beyond 65 years of age. On a deeper probing, learned counsel for the petitioner does accept the position that annexure-1 was issued at the level of the Chairman and that there is no - 4 - corresponding record or decision to show that the said appointment was approved or ratified by the Zila Parishad or any of its Committee under the Act. If that be so, then any decision taken by the Chairman at her level will not bind Zila Parishad muchless creating an obligation of financial outlay which is the issue before this Court. The appointment of the petitioner, may be on contract basis, on the letter pad of the Chairman, by no stretch of imagination, can bind the Zila Parishad and if there is no corresponding approval of such a decision even by the Zila Parishad or by any of its Committee under the Act including the Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, no direction, therefore, is required to be issued in favour of the petitioner because Zila Parishad cannot run on the personal whims of the Chairman. In a democracy every organization is bound by rule of law and not at the whims and fancy of an elected representative on his or her personal fiat or caprice. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)