IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15881 of 2007 Jagdish Yadav @ Jagdish Singh Yadav, son of late Sadhu Yadav, resident of Village Aouwan, P.O. Thanuwa, P.S. Shivsagar, Dist. Rohtas at Sasaram. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Health Dept., Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Rohtas. 5. The District Padadhikari, Rohtas at Sasaram. -------- Respondents ------- 2 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Health servant (Swasthya Sevak) who was regularized on the basis of direction of State of Bihar and now he has been terminated from his service and further be direction to respondents and authority concerned to consider the matter of the petitioner.” counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if the direction given by this Court in the order dated 3.2.1993 in CWJC No. 2 3205 of 1990 (Ram Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others) is also directed to be followed by the respondents in the case of the petitioner. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of the counter affidavit filed by him, would submit that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 30.9.1991 in CWJC No. 8002 of 1990 wherein it was held that regularization of services of the persons whose initial appointment was in the teeth of the mandate of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India was impermissible and that the persons concerned could at best be entitled for payment of salary for the period, he had done his duty. Considering the fact that the petitioner’s services were terminated way back on 5.10.1987 and that the petitioner has moved this Court by filing this writ application on 5.12.2007 i.e. exactly after twenty years, it must be held the writ application is wholly belated in respect of both of the cause of action, either with regard to payment of salary for a period 3 prior to 5.12.1987 or against the order of termination dated 5.10.1987. That apart, from perusal of the order of appointment of the petitioner, it would appear that the services of the petitioner were sought to be engaged as a Seasonal DDT Sprayer for a period of five months only and, therefore, on the basis of such fixed tenure appointment, the petitioner cannot be even treated to be a continuing employee even on daily wages. The view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Sardar Ram Bhajan Singh (supra) in a writ application filed in the year 1990 for payment of admitted salary to the petitioner of that case could be followed only if the petitioner could demonstrate before the competent authority that in course of his seasonal employment, he was denied payment of salary for the actual work done by him. The authority could however make payment thereof only as per the terms of engagement of the petitioner. This Court, however, would not even allow the petitioner to raise a question of termination of his service in view of the 4 fact that such an order of termination was passed way back on 5.12.1987 and today after lapse of more than twenty-four years, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service specially when nature of such appointment was not only casual but also seasonal. That being so, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)