CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11550 OF 1997 --------- IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ----------- Nagendra Tiwary, Son of Late Brij Nandan Tiwary, Village-Gangahara, P.O.- Gangahara, P.S.-Shahpur, District-Patna. -Appellant. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner and Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Main Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur, Patna. -Respondents. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. The petitioner was intermittently employed for three days, five days and seven days as typist-cum-clerk by the Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur between the periods 1980 to 1988. Sometime he was paid daily wagers pay, sometime he was paid pay scale based with deductions. In 1990, ultimately the Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur wrote to the Collector, Patna that the petitioner may be included in the list of retrenched categories for the purpose of their adjustment against regular Class-III post. Nothing had been done about it and, as such, in 1997 the writ application was filed. In the counter affidavit, the stand is that State Government had taken a policy decision in which it prohibited any payment on daily wage or on ad hoc basis after 01.01.1985. In the said decision, it was decided that any person who had worked for as daily wagers or on ad hoc basis for more than 240 days up to - 2 - 01.01.1985 would be liable to be regularized, even though the petitioner had worked intermittently between 1980 to 1985. In these years he had not completed 240 days and, as such, petitioner could not claim regularization. The reply in the counter affidavit is not disputing this issue but the stand is that the State must do what is just and fair. Having considered the matter, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. First, from the period of employment of petitioner it is clear that the petitioner was intermittently employed for three days, five days or seven days. He was never in continuous employment for long periods. It is not in dispute that up to 01.01.1985, he was not even employed for 240 days in all. Thus, petitioner’s employment was purely intermittented. In my view, he cannot raise claim for regularization apart from the fact petitioner has not been able to show as to how he was selected for employment at all. It is evident that petitioner was not employed after 1987. The Sub Divisional Officer made recommendation in his favour for regularization/absorption in 1990, the writ petition was filed in the year 1997, and hence, the writ petition merits no consideration. No direction can be issued after such a long gap of time. The writ petition is dismissed. Patna High Court The 19th August, 2010 NAFR/AFR Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)