LETTERS PATIENT APPEAL No.875 OF 2006 --------- Against the Judgment and Order dated 15-04-2005 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 1760 of 2000 ---------- 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DURGAWATI DAM PROJECT, BHITRI BANDH , KAIMUR………….. APPELLANT Versus 1. BASANT SINGH & ORS- ………………… (Respondents) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ------------- Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P. Verma, JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents/ writ petitioners. 2. It appears that Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar acquired land from several persons in or around 1979 for Durgawati Dam Project situated in the district of Kaimur, Bihar. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on account of such acquisition of land many persons became land- less or lost huge area of their land rendering them unemployed. According to respondent- petitioners, the competent authority looking after the project appointed such persons who were rendered land-less for serving out duties of class –IV employees and the writ petitioners, altogether 53 in number were appointed on daily wages on different dates during 1979-91.It is the further case of the writ petitiones that the State of Bihar through the Water Resources Department ( earlier known as Irrigation Department) issued a circular on 21st. February 1981 laying down certain policy 2 decision for absorption of such persons whose lands had been acquired for the purpose of different projects. Another policy of August, 1985 for appointment in such different projects by giving preference was also relied upon by the petitioners who claimed regularization . The petitioners placed further reliance upon resolution of the State Government in memo no. 1212 dated 10-9-1993 whereby it was decided that displaced persons shall be given preference in appointment and for that purpose they shall be divided in four categories:-The first category is of persons whose total land and residential houses have been acquired. The second category is of those whose 75% of land has been acquired. The third category is of persons whose 50% to 75% of land has been acquired and the displaced persons whose acquired land was less than 50% are in category four. 3. Since the petitioners had put in 18 to 20 years of service on daily wage basis, they requested the authorities for their regularization. According to the petitioners pursuant to the policy of 1993 the Chief Engineer of the department published a list of employees who were appointed on daily wage basis and were displaced persons on account of acquisition of their lands for Durgawati Project. According to the petitioners all are in category-I of the circular dated 10-9-1993 because their whole lands and residential houses had been acquired. 4. The writ court took notice of the grievances raised by the petitioners that under the policy decision, as displaced persons they should have been appointed on a regular basis. The writ court further noticed that the petitioners had been engaged on daily wage basis for 3 almost 20 years and such engagement was from a date prior to a cut off date where-after the Government decided not to permit further ad- hoc engagement and stipulated that such subsequent ad hoc appointments will not be regularized. 5. Considering all the relevant facts the writ court held that the Government should have given assurance only for regular appointment and not for ad hoc engagement which had been given to the petitioners. Hence, a direction was issued to the respondent to consider within twelve weeks from service of a copy of the order on respondent no.1, to convert the ad hoc daily wage employment of the petitioners to permanent appointment in its permanent establishment. 6. On behalf of State of Bihar and its officials who are the appellants mainly two pleas were raised : (1) There was difficulty of finding out post for the petitioners to convert their ad hoc daily wage employment into permanent appointment in its permanent establishment and (2) that under policy decision scrutiny was required to be made and hence a fresh scrutiny should be permitted to be done by the authorities. 7. Having considered the facts which are not in dispute, the reasonings of the writ court and the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the appellants, we find that the appellants have not been fair and honest in implementing their policy which was a good policy to take care of immense hardship of the displaced persons who had lost their means of livelihood . Such policy must have been formulated keeping in view the necessity for employees relating to the very project which has been going on since around 1980-90 and has not been completed till date. If 4 during such long period posts could not be identified for such displaced persons, fault must lie with the authorities . In the special facts of the case the authorities must treat the petitioners as regular employees on account of their own policy, the hardship which the petitioners have undergone and the bleak future of the petitioners if they are continued to be treated as daily wage employees. In such circumstances, in our view, the relief granted by the writ court to the writ petitioners is just and fair relief which requires no interference. The pleas of the appellants cannot be accepted as valid when the engagement of the petitioners is continuing for such a long time as ad- hoc daily wage employees. The posts must be treated as regular posts. The petitioners must be given all the benefits as regular employees within a reasonable period such as eight weeks from today. 8. If any of the petitioners is dead then his heirs will be at liberty to claim whatever legal benefit may accrue to them on account of order of the writ court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 22nd. July, 2010 NAFR Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( B.P.Verma, J)