IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8479 of 2010 1. MEHI LAL BAITHA S/O PRAN BAITHA R/O VILL.- CHENARI, P.S.- CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEHRI-ON-SONE 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER DURGAWATI CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE, BHITRI BANDH, ROHTAS 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DURGAWATI RIGHT EMBACKMENT CANAL DIVISION, CHENARI, ROHTAS 6. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 7. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR, BHABUA ----------- 2 23.03.2011 From the documents annexed with the writ application, it appears that the petitioner is working with the respondents since 1986 as a Cook. The documents show that many times his case was referred for regularization, but no final decision has been taken as yet by the respondents. The writ application was filed on 13.05.2010 with service of two copies of the application in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed in the case. After the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, 2 State of Karnatka Vs. Uma Devi (3) [2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363] any matter in respect of regularization has to be considered in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench made in paragraph 44 of the judgment and not otherwise. Any judgment of any Court which may run counter to the law laid down cannot be considered as precedent. Likewise, any Government circular or Rules which may run counter to the parameters laid down in the said Constitution Bench judgment has to be held as void. The Constitution Bench lays down that any employee working for more than 10 years on temporary basis or adhoc basis has to be considered for regularization, if the initial appointment was not illegal. No other parameter can be added to the observations of the Constitution Bench. However, since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner’s case has been finally considered and disposed of, either way, in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench, this Court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said observations of the Constitution Bench and take a final 3 decision in the matter positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If necessary, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing in the matter before any final orders are passed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)