IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17912 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 7815 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7816 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2011 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Nandan Singh, R/o Mohalla- Durgapur Goshala, Katihar, P.S. & District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Collector, Katihar 4. Katihar Municipality, Katihar through its Executive Officer, P.S. & District- Katihar 5. The Special Officer, Katihar Nagar Parishad, P.S. & District- Katihar 6. The Executive Officer, Katihar Nagar Parishad, P.S. & District – Katihar. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.S. Shabbar Hussain, GP-4 For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court LPA No.1701 of 2011 (2) dt.18-11-2011 2 / 4 2 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 18-11-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 7815 of 2011: The delay of 17 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1701 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 20th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 17912 of 2010. The appellant is a daily wage Class IV employee of the respondent Katihar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Municipality’). The appellant was engaged as a daily wage Class IV employee in 1986. His service in Class IV cadre was regularised in 1988. The said order of regularization was not approved by the State Government. Under the instructions of the State Government the service of the appellant and several such other persons came to be terminated on 16th June 2001. Challenge to the said order in C.W.J.C. No. 10944 of 2001 failed before the learned single Judge. In appeal before the Division Bench, the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned single Judge, however, observed, “If the Municipality intends to employ daily wages then the appellants and others should be given preference in the matter of engagement.” It appears that pursuant to the above observation the appellant was reengaged as daily wage Class IV employee on 17th December 2003. Since his induction as daily wage Class IV employee in 2003, the appellant raised claim for regularization in C.W.J.C. No. 4346 of 2006. Reliance was placed on the State Patna High Court LPA No.1701 of 2011 (2) dt.18-11-2011 3 / 4 3 Government Resolution dated 10th May 2005. By the order dated 12th March 2007, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the appellant to approach the respondents. The respondents were directed to take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the said direction the appellant’s claim was examined and rejected on 9th August 2007. The said order dated 9th August 2007 came to be challenged in the present proceeding. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Kripanand Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected and that the view of the learned single Judge was upheld in the Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench. He has submitted that the challenge on the ground of discrimination has been wrongly rejected, merely because other employees regularized in service were Class III employees and that the appellant is a Class IV employee. He has submitted that in the matter of regularization there cannot be classes within the one common class of the daily wage employees. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Jha. Challenge to the termination of service of the appellant had failed before this Court in above referred C.W.J.C. No. 10944 of 2001. The order was confirmed by the Division Bench. The appellant was reengaged pursuant to the above referred observation made by the Division Bench. The appellant’s claim for regularization in service having been rejected; termination of his service having been upheld; we agree with the learned single Judge that the claim Patna High Court LPA No.1701 of 2011 (2) dt.18-11-2011 4 / 4 4 for regularization made by the appellant is barred by principle of constructive res judicata. Besides, the comparison with other Class III employees is inapposite. The appellant could not be permitted to argue that he and the Class III employees stand at par. Two services are totally different; the recruitment is different; seniority is different. The appellant’s case cannot be compared with that of a Class III employee, whether engaged before or after the appellant was engaged. No other contention is raised before us. We see no substance in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)