IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6505 of 2011 Sri Ram Karan Yadav son of Sri Sheo Yadav, resident of Village- Mohanpur, P.O.-Sripur Hatti, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani, Bihar. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Bihar, Patna, 3. The General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Madhubani, Bihar. 4. The Director of Industries, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Deputy Director of Industries, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Director, Directorate of Technical Development, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. .......Respondents ----------- 03 20.10.2011 Petitioner was engaged to work as a jeep driver in the District Industrial Centre, Madhubani on daily wage. The engagement is in terms of Annexure-1 dated 06.11.1986. Since then, petitioner has continued to work in that capacity at least till 30th of July, 2007 when he was disengaged. The reason for disengagement is not known except that the petitioner started asserting his right for regularization under the respondents looking at the long association which the petitioner had under the respondents. Claim for regularization of the petitioner on the post has been rejected, as would be evident from Annexure-G, annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents. Annexure-G is dated 23.08.2010. Petitioner is not now before the High Court seeking a direction for appropriate relief. From many a documents which have been annexed by the petitioner in support of his claim of work under the respondents, the factum of the petitioner having been engaged on 06.11.1986 till his 2 disengagement in the year 2007 cannot be wished away. There are also circumstances to show that the petitioner was virtually treated as part and partial of the District Administration as well, because he has been deployed to work even for duties unrelated to the District Industrial Centre by the Collectorate of Madhubani. In other words, petitioner did prove himself to be indispensable so far as his service with the respondents is concerned. A long association of 21 years on a daily wage basis is nothing but exploitation of a citizen, who does not have a bargaining position with the mighty state. The stand taken in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents is that the petitioner’s engagement was illegal and, therefore, there cannot be any case for regularization to be considered. The circumstances under which he came to be engaged and in the background, has been indicated in the order of rejection contained in Annexure-G. The stand of the State will have to be taken with certain reservation, because an illegality cannot be discovered after a long period of 21 years, only when the petitioner made a claim for regularization. If the initial engagement of the petitioner was said to be illegal that illegality was allowed to be perpetuated by his continuance on the post till the year 2007 when things became rather hot for the respondents to handle. The defence or the reason put up for non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner is fit to be rejected under the given facts and circumstances as well taking the period of engagement of the petitioner under the respondents. 3 Court is not unmindful of two policy decisions of the State Government issued by the Department of General Administration, where directions have been given for consideration of regularization of the cases of such employees, who have worked for more than five years and for a minimum number of 240 days in a year. Even otherwise post decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Uma Devi, a guideline has been issued by the State Government to take steps for regularization as a one time measure. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the petitioner has made out a case for direction upon the respondents, especially the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Madhubani, Bihar (respondent no. 3) that he shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. If any approval is required to be taken at the level of the Director Industries, the same should be considered, but a final decision on his count must be indicated to the petitioner within time frame fixed as above. This writ application is allowed with the above direction. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)