IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8260 of 2010 Ram Pravesh Prasad Singh, son of Sri Lal Prasad Singh, resident of Village Pandooi, P.S. Parasbigha (Jehanabad), District Jehanabad…………………………………………………..………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Committee of Three Secretaries headed by Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (now General Administration Department), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (now General Administration Department), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Engineer – in – Chief – cum - Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Magadh Circle, Gaya. 8. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division No.1, Jehanabad…………………………………………………………….Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the State: Mr. P.K. Verma,Addl. A.G. 5 With Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to A.A.G.5. 2 14.03.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging a resolution of the Three-Member Committee constituted 2 under the orders of this Court for consideration of the cases of a large number of employees for regularization in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC). The said resolution is Annexure-1 with the writ application. From the resolution it appears that, to consider the case of the petitioner, from the Road Construction Department information was called for in the form of a check slip in respect of services of petitioner. In the check slip, in the column for information in respect of sanction of post and whether the petitioner was appointed against vacant post, it was only mentioned that the petitioner was appointed against the post in the work charged establishment. No information was furnished in the check-slip whether the post was sanctioned or not and whether it was vacant. However, only on the basis of that information, the Committee has held 3 that petitioner was not appointed against a vacant sanctioned post and, therefore, has resolved against his regularization holding that he does not fulfill the parameters laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment and hence has rejected his case. For consideration of the case of any incumbent for regularization of his service in terms of law laid down by the Constitution Bench and observations made therein, the authorities are required to consider specific facts, and available informations, and, to deny regularization to an employee, they have come to a definite finding with regard to the illegal nature of his appointment. This finding has to be based on unimpeachable documents and materials. If the employee claims that he is still continuing in the Department, and in this particular case from near about 31 years, the authorities have to come to a conclusion that despite of his long service in the Department, his initial appointment was 4 illegal. This finding cannot be on the basis of presumption on account of want of information from the concerned Department. Rather, in absence of definite materials establishing otherwise, presumption has to go in favour of the employee. Therefore, this Court finds that the approach of the Committee in the case of the petitioner is not correct. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that under the P.W.D. Code, which has force of a law framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, an employee of the work charged establishment becomes a regular employee if he continues under the establishment for certain period. He has also relied on some subsequent circular of the State Government in this regard. However, these matters were not placed before the Committee and not considered, therefore, this Court refrains from making any comment on that. Since this Court has found that the approach of the Committee in 5 considering the case of the petitioner was not correct, the resolution of the Committee as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside. The matter of the petitioner is remitted back to the Committee to consider his case in proper perspective strictly in view of the parameters laid down by the Constitution Bench judgment and only on the basis of unimpeachable facts and documents, as may be made available by the Department to it. Consideration in this regard must be made within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner with a representation in which, if he requests for personal hearing, he shall be granted the same. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)