IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7620 of 2005 Ram Prasad Pandey, son of Sri Tej Bahadur Pandey, resident of Chimani Bhatha (Bus Stand), P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Zone, Bhagalpur, Government of Bihar, Bhagalpur. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur, Government of Bihar, Bhagalpur. 6. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Jhajha, Government of Bihar, Jhajha. 7. The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-division, Jhajha (Jamui), Government of Bihar, Jhajha. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 10.4.2009 Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.6. This writ petition is directed against order bearing letter no.630, dated 10.9.1996 (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the services of the petitioner as a daily-wage earner in the Minor Irrigation Sub-division, Jhajha, has been dispensed with in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been treated to be a regular employee and thereafter the departmental proceeding should have been initiated for dispensing with his service. He relied on the following reported judgments: (i) 2006 (3) P.L.J.R. 370 (Dayanand Sinha & others Vs. State of Bihar and others). (ii) (2000)3 S.C.C. 588 (Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and others). 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was originally engaged as daily-wage earner on 1.5.1982 in the Minor Irrigation Division, Jhajha. In order to adjust him, he was transferred to Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur, vide order dated 14.2.1986, under Work-charge establishment. Instead of joining the new place, the petitioner proceeded 3 on “vkej.k vu’ku“on two occasions. He has once resorted to the same on 13.3.1996 and again on 15.7.1996. The petitioner was paid his arrears of salary, notwithstanding which he never reported for duties at new place leading to the impugned order. It appears to me that the petitioner was not a confirmed employee and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25F of Act are not applicable. It further appears from a perusal of the impugned order that the amount of compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Act has been paid to the petitioner. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/