IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10589 of 2006 Lal Bihari Singh, son of late Dilip Singh, resident of village – Tendua, P S – Dehri, District – Rohtas - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 4 The Superintending Engineer (Mechanical), National Highway, PWD, Patna 5 The Executive Engineer, National Highway, PWD, Dehri on Sone, Rohtas 6 The Subdivisional Officer, National Highway, Subdivisional Office, PWD, Dehri on Sone, Rohtas 7 The Assistant Engineer, National Highway (PWD), Dehri on Sone, Rohtas 8 The Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna - Respondents ----------- 3 06.12.2010 The petitioner claims to be working intermittently in the Road Construction Department, Mechanical Wing, Government of Bihar, Patna. He claims that he was initially appointed on daily wages in 1994 and, thereafter in 1995, he was appointed as Chowkidar. He states that since 1998, he has not been paid his wages. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been categorically stated that the petitioner was a casual employee on need base. It is submitted that initially his services were used in the Hot Mixed Plant. Thereafter, on or about 19.10.1995, he was appointed as Chowkidar vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which matter was then enquired and pursuant to directives of the Government, his services were terminated with effect from 29.09.1998 vide order as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. These facts are also stated in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is not contradicted in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and petitioner has no right to claim regularisation 2 and/or absorption. However, for the period, during which petitioner has worked in one capacity or the other, upon proof being furnished, he is liable to be paid, if not already paid. That would be ensured by the concerned Executive Engineer. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)