IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6004 of 2007 Awadhesh Kumar son of Sri Bhuvneshwar Rai, resident of village Damodarpur, Dumri, P.S. Kurhni, district Muzaffarpur ……. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Engineer-in-Chief cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna 4. Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur 5. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health Mechanical Sub Division, Sitamarhi …. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner M/s Banwari Sharma & Shiv Kumar, Advocates For the State :Mr. Binay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-13 06/ 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order, bearing Memo No. 1017 dated 30.11.2006, Annexure-9 by which petitioner has been regularized on the post of Pump Operator in the scale of ` 2650 – 4000/- . 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier under order, bearing Memo No. 2 321 dated 14.3.1988, Annexure-1 petitioner was regularized in the work charge establishment on the post of Pump Khalasi in the scale of ` 350 – 425/- with effect from 13.1.1988. After aforesaid regularization, petitioner was again appointed as Electrician under office order No. 256 dated 31.12.1996, Annexure-2 along with others in the scale of ` 1200 – 1800/- . While petitioner served on the post of Electrician, he was served with a notice, bearing Memo No. 2322 dated 13.4.2002, Annexure- 5 calling upon him to show cause as to why his regularization made under order dated 14.3.1988 be not cancelled. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid notice dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-5 by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6370 of 2002 in which interim order dated 22.5.2002, Annexure-6 was passed directing the authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to notice dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-5. Aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 6370 of 2002 was heard along with other similar writ petitions and disposed of by the Division Bench under order dated 13.7.2006, Annexure-13 with direction to the 3 authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons for regularization in the light of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) BBCJ 398. In compliance of the orders of the Division Bench, the authorities considered the case of the petitioner and others for regularization and passed the impugned order regularizing his services on the post of Pump Operator in the scale of ` 2650 – 4000/- which is inferior to the post of Electrician both in status and scale. Petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the regularization order dated 30.11.2006 praying inter alia to modify the said order with direction to the State- respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Electrician in the higher scale of ` 4000 – 6000/- . Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even after direction in the interim order dated 22.5.2002, Annexure-6 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to notice dated 13.4.2002, Annexure-5, he was not paid the salary of the post of 4 Electrician in the light of his appointment order dated 31.12.1996, Annexure-2. 4 Counsel for the State- respondents has opposed both the aforesaid prayers on the ground that petitioner was erroneously brought in the work charge establishment under order dated 14.3.1988 and when the aforesaid fact was realized, petitioner was served with the show cause notice asking him to show cause as to why he be not reverted as Muster Roll worker, in the interim order dated 22.5.2002, Annexure-6 this Court only directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioner and thus during the period interim order remained under operation, petitioner is entitled for remuneration as Muster Roll worker and in appreciation of such fact departmental authorities themselves issued instruction contained in letter No. 5410 dated 22.8.2002, Annexure-7. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that during the hearing of the earlier writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 6370 of 2002 on 10.5.2006, learned Additional Advocate General No.-II appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that State 5 Government has taken a policy decision dated 16.3.2006 that Class IV employee having completed 240 working days as daily wage earner prior to the cut off date 11.12.1990 shall be considered for regularization. Learned Additional Advocate General No.-II also submitted that those who have been reverted from work charge to muster roll, shall also be considered for regularization. It is further submitted that in the light of the aforesaid decision, the State Government considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2006, Annexure-9 regularizing the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator in the scale of ` 2650 – 4000/-, but while passing the impugned order, the State Government did not consider the fact that before issue of the show cause notice dated 13.4.2002 to cancel the regularization of the petitioner under order dated 14.3.1988, Annexure-1, petitioner served on the post of Electrician in the light of the order dated 31.12.1996 , Annexure-2 i.e. for more than five years and in appreciation of such fact, petitioner should have been regularized under the impugned 6 order on the higher post of Electrician in the scale of ` 4000 – 6000/-. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the case of Ramayan Singh, who was also the beneficiary of the office order No. 256 dated 31.12.1996, Annexure-2 and was petitioner before the Division Bench, similar impugned order dated 30.11.2006 has been passed which was assailed by said Ramayan Singh in C.W.J.C. No. 12230 of 2010, which was disposed of under orders dated 2.12.2011 directing the State- respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of the orders of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12187 of 2009. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner for regularization is required to be considered in the light of the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General No.-II before the Division Bench on 10.5.2006 incorporated in paragraph 8 of the order dated 13.7.2006, Annexure- 13 and appropriate order be passed by Respondent no.3 considering the policy decision of the State Government dated 16.3.2006 in accordance with law, 7 as early as possible, in any case within the same time, which has been granted under order dated 2.12.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12230 of 2010. 7. In the light of the interim order dated 22.5.2002, Annexure-6 passed in the case of the petitioner, petitioner shall be entitled for arrears of difference of salary of the post of Electrician and the lower post for which he was paid during the period interim order dated 22.5.2002 remained under operation within the same time, provided the same has been paid to other similarly situate employees in whose case also similar interim order was passed. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)