IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14866 of 2006 NIRANJAN KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Rupak Kumar and Nishant Kumar. For the Housing Board: Mr. Rajiv Nayan Singh. For the State : M/S. Md. Rashul Haque (GP 5) And K. K. Singh. ------ 04. 18.09.2008 Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondents especially the Building Construction and Housing Department to regularize his services on the post of Upper Division Clerk right from 22.10.1984 in the light of resolution No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 as this kind of benefit has already accrued to a large number of persons by virtue of order No.2329 dated 18th November, 1989, contained in annexure-11. Some basic facts are not disputed that the petitioner was recruited as a work charge employee under the then Housing Department but when the Housing Board came to existence, large number of employees of the Housing Department were sent to work under the Housing Board. At the time of constitution of the Housing Board, the Board of Directors had taken a decision that terms and conditions of service as well as other related rules including Bihar Service Code would be applicable to such employees till an appropriate regulation is made by the Bihar State Housing Board. Even as of today the said service regulation has not yet been finally given shape and notified. Petitioner’s submission is that in terms of a decision of the - 2 - State which is Order No.592 dated 28.3.1988, 21 persons came to be regularized and given permanent status in terms of annexure-11 but with a rider that they shall continue to work under the Bihar State Housing Board. Quite a few persons whose name figures in annexure- 11 are juniors to the petitioner who entered in service on 1.7.1971. In this regard name of Sri Mathura Prasad at Serial No. 1, Shri Uma Shankar Prasad at Serial No.9 and Shri Ram Sunder Prasad at Serial No.16 is highlighted. The petitioner therefore has a grievance of being left out of the benefit though his position was not different from the rest. He has further brought materials on record contained in annexure-14 that a kind of decision or a recommendation was made to regularize the services of the other left out employees including the petitioner as would be borne out from annexure-14 to the writ application. But despite guidelines in this regard the said benefit never accrued to the petitioner and the decision of follow-up action has remained in the file of the Government. State has filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary one also but their stand seems to be more evasive if not misleading in certain aspect. They do not deny the decision taken and the benefit conferred on 21 persons by virtue of annexure-11 but they say that since service regulation is already in place of the Housing Board, the matter rests with Housing Board and the State has nothing to do now. Similar prayer and relief by some other petitioners has been refused by the court. The stand taken by the State does not seem to be acceptable - 3 - by this Court especially when there is evidence on record to show that even on 14.2.2008 when 224th meeting of the Board was held in Item No.7, the Board had resolved to get the service regulations legally examined before its formal notification after taking the approval of the Government. If this is what emerges from the record then the affidavit filed on behalf of the State is misleading by saying that there is a regulation in place right from the year 1989. The Court gets a feeling that State wants to shirk its responsibility by scuttling the issue rather than facing the situation affront. In the totality of the facts and also keeping in mind that since no service regulation is yet in place and the background of the claim and his work in the Housing Board is not different from all those persons who had been extended benefit in terms of annexure-11 dated 18th November, 1989, respondent No.1 is hereby directed to do the exercise needed in this regard and keeping in mind the order dated 18th November, 1989 contained in annexure-11 pass appropriate orders giving similar relief as that of the 21 persons of annexure-11 `within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed with the above direction. ` rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)