IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.53 of 2002 BADRI SINGH, SON OF SRI LAL BABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SIHAUTA BANGRA,P.S.MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, IIIRD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, IIIRD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SIWAN. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SARAN CANAL DIVISION, GANDAK PROJECT, MAHARAJGANJ, P.S.MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. RESPONDENTS ----------- 05 26.07.2011 Heard Mr. Jitendra Pandey for the petitioner and Mr. Saurendra Pandey, Assistant Counsel to SC 23 for the respondents. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that his case is not being considered by the respondents for regularization of service in the Bihar Government. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was engaged on daily-wage basis as Mixure Operator/Gate Operator by respondent no.4 on 15.1.1973. His engagement was dispensed with on 1.3.1975. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, on the following terms of reference:- “Whether the termination of service of Sri Badri Singh, Mixure Operator from 1.3.1975 without any notice is justified. If not, whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief.” 2 3. The same was registered as Reference Case No.17 of 1989. The reference was answered by order dated 20.2.1993, in favour of the workman, and the order of termination was set aside with full back wages. He was not immediately reinstated in service. The petitioner submissed representation before the respondent authorities that because of his indigent circumstances, he may be reinstated forthwith, and without payment of arrears of salary. The same did not materialise, leading to CWJC No.1442 of 1995. The same was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 18.11.1999, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate him forthwith accompanied with payment of arrears of back wages with effect from the date of the award. The same has since been paid to be petitioner. 4. He raises a grievance before this Court that his case has not been considered for regularization of service in Bihar Government in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. He submits that services of two similarly- circumstanced persons were considered and they have been regularized in service. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondents have attempted to make out a case 3 that, for the circumstances indicated in the counter affidavit, it is unable to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization. It appears to us that the petitioner’s case for consideration of his case for regularization in the service of Bihar Government is now governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006(4) SCC 1. The same has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in its two Judge Bench decision in the case of The State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari, 2010(9) SCC 24. The counter affidavit was sworn prior to the judgments of the Supreme Court. 6. In that view of the matter, we direct the petitioner to submit an exhaustive representation before the appropriate authority for consideration of his case for regularization in the service of Bihar Government. The authorities shall dispose of the same in accordance with the parameters laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court. 7. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. This Court will be pleased if the entire process is completed within a period of six months from today. psc ( S.K.Katriar,J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)