IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10119 of 2002 BISHNUDEO THAKUR, son of late Anup Thakur, resident of village- Satlakha (Dih Tol), P. S. Rahika, District Madhubani Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bishshweriya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum Special Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bishshweriya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer (Building) (North Region), Building Construction Department, Bishshweriya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Building Construction Department, Darbhanga 5. The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Building Construction Department, Madhubani. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State: Mr. Piyush Lal, A.C to AAG-III ------------- 6 06-04-2009 Heard the parties. This writ petition was referred to a Division Bench by order dated 2-3-2009. That order shows that learned Single Judge was not persuaded to follow his own judgement dated 5-8-2008 passed in CWJC no. 999/2001 (Mukti Nath Singh vs the State of Bihar & Ors) in view of reliance by learned counsel for the State upon a Full Bench judgement of this court in the case of Durganand Jha & Ors vs the State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2007 (4), PLJR, 259. On going through the judgement dated 5-8-2008 in the case of Mukti Nath Singh (Supra) it is found that in that case also attention of the learned Single Judge was drawn to the Full Bench judgement in the case of Durganand Jha, yet the Full Bench judgement was not followed and it was observed that the Full Bench decision does not take into consideration some earlier judgements relied upon by the - 2 - petitioner in that case. Those judgements were by Single Judge in respect of claim by work charge employee for regularization in the permanent and regular establishment of the State Government. After going through the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 5-8-2008 in the case of Mukti Nath Singh we have no option but to hold that the said judgement does not lay down correct law as the same is in teeth of a Full Bench judgement in the case of Durganand Jha. The Full Bench judgement of this court covering the matter in issue could not have been disregarded by a Single Judge or even by a Division Bench. The Full Bench judgement in the case of Durganand Jha relies upon several judgements of the Supreme Court specially in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India, AIR, 1980, SC, 115 and State of Rajsthan vs Kunji Raman, AIR, 1997(2), SC, 693. It also considered a recent Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC, 1 and held that reversion of a class IV employee to his post in work charge establishment or as daily wager could not be interfered with because such employees had been regularized/promoted on concerned posts in the regular establishment without following the permissible modes of appointment in regular establishment of the government. In the present case the petitioner has sought a relief that he should be directed to be absorbed in the regular establishment from a date prior to his superannuation on 31-1-2003 in work charge - 3 - establishment. Such a relief cannot be granted in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this court in the aforenoted case of Durganand Jha and others. In the facts and circumstances, this court finds no option but to dismiss the writ petition. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)