IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2044 of 2007 1. Ashok Sarkar, S/o Vishu Sarkar at present Electrical Fitter, Public Health Division (Mech.) Purnea 2. Anant Kishore Jha, S/o Krishna Kant Jha, at present Pump Khalasi, P.H. Division(Mech.) Purnea 3. Bhavesh Chandra Mishra, S/o Late Muktinath Mishra at present Pump Khalasi, P.H. Division (Mech.) Purnea ….. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Joint Secretary, Management Cell, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer (Mech.), Public Health Engineering Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Mechanical Circle, Bhagalpur 6. The Executive Engineer (Mech.) Public Health Mechanical Division, Purnea …. … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners :M/s Shashi Bhushan & Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the State :Mr. Obaidullah, A.C. to S.C.-21 02/ 11.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order No. 23 dated 24.1.2007, bearing Memo No. 70 dated 24.1.2007, Annexure-4 issued under the signature of Sri Surendra Kumar, Chief Engineer (Mechanical) of the Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government whereunder request of the 2 petitioners for regularization on the post of Electrical Fitter/ Pump Khalasi- cum- Chaukidar in establishment under the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government has been rejected on the ground that their case is not covered by the scheme for regularization formulated by the State Government under Resolution No. 639 dated 16.3.2006, as petitioners have not served for 240 days in the preceding five years in any of the establishment under the Chief Engineer (Mechanical). Aforesaid stand taken in the impugned order dated 24.1.2007, Annexure-4 is being refuted by the counsel for the petitioners with reference to the office order No. 48, 14 dated 24.2.1988, 4.2.1988 bearing Memo Nos. 150 dated 24.2.1988 and 66 dated 4.2.1988, Annexures-1 and 1/A whereunder taking into account the satisfactory service rendered by the petitioners in the muster roll with effect from 28.4.1981, 29.4.1981 and 30.9.1980, their services was regularized in the work charge establishment of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 1.2.1988 and the 3 petitioners continued to serve the work charge establishment of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) until the Commissioner and Secretary of the Department issued Memo No. 2322 dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-2 series reverting the petitioners to the muster roll establishment. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even after their reversion in the muster roll in compliance of the order dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-2 series they continue to serve the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) as muster roll employee till date. In this background, it is submitted that petitioners have served the department for over two decades and their request for regularization should have been granted under order dated 24.1.2007, Annexure-4. It is further submitted that the aforesaid facts are so glaring that after taking note of the aforesaid facts, request of the petitioners for regularization could not have been rejected. The authorities in order to refuse the request of the petitioners for regularization did not even notice the aforesaid facts and passed the order dated 24.1.2007, 4 Annexure-4 simply stating that petitioners’ request for regularization is not covered by the resolution of the Government bearing no. 639 dated 16.3.2006 without indicating as to how the case of the petitioners is not fit for regularization in terms of resolution dated 16.3.2006 with reference to order dated 4,24.2.1988, Annexure-1 & 1/A and reversion order dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-2. 4. Counsel for the State has neither filed any counter affidavit nor he is able to dispute the contents of the order dated 24.2.1988, 4.2.1988, Annexures-1 and 1/A as also the reversion order dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-2 series from which it is quite evident that petitioners have served the establishment under the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) for over two decades in the muster roll with effect from 28, 29.4.1981 and 30.9.1980. In my opinion, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the instructions of the Government contained in resolution No. 639 dated 16.3.2006 issued for regularization of the muster roll workers. 5. In appreciation of the aforesaid facts, 5 impugned order no.23 dated 24.1.2007 bearing Memo No. 70 dated 24.1.2007, Annexure-4 is quashed so far it relates to the rejection of the case of the petitioners for regularization with direction to the respondent- authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the light of the order dated 24.2.1988, 4.2.1988, the reversion order dated 13.4.2002, Annexures-1, 1/A and 2 series as also the Resolution of the State Government bearing No. 639 dated 16.3.2006 as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)