IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9164 of 2004 RAMESH KUMAR SON OF LATE SARJU MEHTAR RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BABU BANK, P.O. & P.S. JHAJHA IN THE DISTRICT OF JAMUI AT PRESENT RESIDING IN RAILWAY QUARTER NO. 100-B, JHAJHA WORKING AS SWEEPER IN JHAJHA BLOCK Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, JAMUI 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JHAJHA DISTRICT JAMUI. ----------- 3 03/08/2010 Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a sweeper against a temporary vacant post in the district of Jamui on 30.11.1973. Subsequently the post in question was made permanent with effect from 24.10.1978 and the petitioner continued to work against the permanent post as would be evident from communication dated 31.12.1983 contained in annexure-3. However, since the petitioner’s service was not made permanent, he approached the High Court seeking a direction for payment of regular salary and for regularization of his services. The prayer of the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 10.12.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4201 of 1993. Order is annexure-5 to the writ application. - 2 - Based on the direction of the High Court, the Additional District Magistrate, Jamui on the orders of the Collector, Jamui issued letter dated 7.7.1994 giving pay scale of Rs.775-1025 to the petitioner with effect from 10.12.1993 taking into consideration the order passed in the writ application contained in annexure-5. A gradation list of Class IV employees came to be published on 18.10.2002 which is annexure-1 to the writ application where the petitioner was shown to be at serial no. 65 and the date of his appointment as 10.12.1993. Petitioner got aggrieved by such a position, represented to the respondents but no heed was paid and, therefore, the present writ application. Petitioner submits that it was a case of regularization of service and not re-appointment. High Court in annexure-5 directed regularization and the regularization has to take effect from the date of initial recruitment or appointment and not from the date the pay scale was given to the petitioner. Shifting the date to 10.12.1993 has the effect of taking away the benefit of past service which had been rendered by the petitioner right from 30.11.1973 to 1.4.1981. - 3 - Stand of the respondent State is that the service of the petitioner has been counted from the date he was taken on permanent rolls and regular pay scale has been given. There is nothing wrong with the gradation list or the seniority shown in annexure-1. They have carried out the direction of the Court and Annexure-A is the order which has regularized the services of the petitioner along with pay scale. Though the order contained in annexure-A does not indicate that the petitioner’s service stands regularized but keeping in view the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also accepting the fact that a regular pay scale had been given to the petitioner, there is a presumption that the petitioner has been taken on the permanent roll and to that extent regularized on the post he is working. As there is no indication in Annexure-A that it was a case of re-appointment of the petitioner by virtue of the order passed by the High Court earlier, the benefit of past service cannot vanish and that aspect of the matter will have to be taken into consideration by the respondents as and when occasion for the same arises. So far as the gradation list is concerned, it may be required to be re-worked in view of the - 4 - above observations and developments. Let the petitioner approach the respondents with a fresh application with a copy of this order who shall be obliged to do the needful in the matter after reconsideration of the issue. This writ application stands allowed with the above direction. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)