IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12625 of 2001 Ram Swaroop Rai, son of Shri Jagarnath Rai, resindent of village- Fetehpur Girmisani, P.S. Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi, at present working as Daily wages Peon in the Office of Branch Manager, Bihar State Co- operative Land Development Bank, Sitamarhi. ...... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary– cum- Commissioner, Department of Co- operation, Vikas Bhawan, Patna. 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. Administrator Cum Managing Director-cum- Administrator, Bihar Raj Co-operative Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd, Budh Marg, Patna. ...... Respondents. ----------- 07- 18.12.2008 Heard Dr. M.P. Shukla for the petitioner, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1 for respondent nos.1, and Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary for respondent nos.2 and 3 (Bihar Raj Co-operative Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd.). The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to regularise his services as a Class-IV employee in the respondent-Bank after setting aside the order whereby he has been discontinued from working as a daily-wager. 2. A brief narration of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner 2 claims to have started working as Tehsil Peon with the respondent-Bank in 1979 and he was engaged on daily-wage in 1981, being one step forward. By order of the respondent authorities of 25.7.1986 (Annexure-10), the sanctioned strength of the respondent-Bank was notified. Relying on the sanctioned strength, as well as continuous functioning on daily-wages, the petitioner and similarly circumstanced persons preferred writ petitions in this Court for a direction to the Bank to regularise their services. C.W.J.C. No.8626 of 1992 (Rajendra Prasad Singh and another Vs. The State of Bihar and others) was disposed of by order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-7), preferred by persons other than the petitioner, whereby the respondent-authorities were directed to consider the cases of those petitioners with the following directions: “...Accordingly, the writ application is alalowed and the respondent Bank is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularisation of their services if they otherwise fulfil the requisite qualification within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 3 C.W.J.C. No.9336 of 1994 (Ram Swaroop Rai Vs. The State of Bihar and others) preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by the order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-8), in terms of the said order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-7), with just the same direction. By an order of November 2000, the petitioner was informed that he is not required to report for duties from the day following, leading to the present writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, as well as refusal on the part of the respondent-Bank in regularising the services of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the Bank has acted in defiance of the order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-7), read with the order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-8). He next submits that the petitioner continuously worked from 1979 to November 2000. Apart from the experience he has acquired, he has become overage for any public employment. He relies on the judgment dated 27.9.1995 (Annexure-9), preferred by similarly circumstanced employees, whereby direction was issued to the respondent authorities to regularise the services of those petitioners. He, therefore, seeks a direction 4 to the respondent authorities to regularise his services. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 supports the impugned action. He has also placed before me copies of certain orders passed by the authorities, copies whereof have been served on learned counsel for the parties. He has also placed on record copies of the order dated 16.1.2004, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in L.P.A. No.710 of 1995, L.P.A. No.1095 of 1995, and the analogous appeals. It is relevant to state that the said L.P.A. No.1095 of 1995 had been preferred by the Bank against the order dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure-8). 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We are proceeding on the assumption that the petitioner has served the respondent-Bank in the manner represented by him before this Court without really adjudicating the same. In other words, he worked from 1979 to November 2000 as Tehsil Peon and was engaged on daily-wage from 1981 to November 2000. We have also taken note of the order of the respondent authorities 5 dated 25.7.1986 (Annexure-10), notifying the sanctioned strength of the respondent-Bank, Paragraph-5 whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: (p.46) “5.in cy ds fu/kkZj.k ds QyLo#i ;fn cSad dks dksbZ fu;qfDr dh vko’;drk gksxh rks cSad viuh foRrh; fLFkfr ds vuqlkj gh inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr rHkh djsaxs tc ljdkj n~okjk i= la[;k 950 fnukad 18&4&84 esa yxk;h x;h jksd gVk yh tk;@“ (Emphasis added) 6. We are further mindful of the position that this Court had disposed of the petitioner’s previous writ petition C.W.J.C. No.9336 of 1994, directing the respondent authorities to consider his case for regularisation. The Bank considered the cases of such employees as the petitioner and, in view of the difficult financial position, issued a general order, contained in Memo No.11025, dated 9.11.2000, that the services of those employees no longer required will be dispensed with. A detailed scrutiny followed and in view of the circumstances overtaking the affairs of the Bank, the Bank has declined to regularise the services of the petitioner and such others, and have been discontinued. The relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: 6 “bl lanHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd cSad dh foRrh; fLFkfr fnuks&fnu ttZj gksrh tk jgh. vius fu;fer dkfeZdksa dk Hkh cSad le; ij osru dk Hkqxrku ugh dj ik jgh gS. bldh ttZj foRrh; fLFkfr ds dkj.k gh jkT; ljdkj us xkjaVh nsuk cUn dj fn;k. jkT; ljdkj dh xkjaVh cUn gksus ds QyLo#i uokMZ us yEch vof/k rd bl cSad dks foRr iks"k.k cUn j[kk. var esa jkT; ljdkj ds funs’k ij cSad ds iqu#RFkku gsrq ,d iqu#FFkku ;kstuk(Revival Plan)rS;kj dh xbZ. iqu#RFkku ;kstuk ds dk;kZUo;u ij gh jkT; ljdkj dh xkjaVh vkSj rn~uqlkj uokMZ n~okjk foRr iks"j.k fuHkZj gS. bl iqu#RFkku ;kstuk dk lcls egRoiw.kZ fcUnq LFkkiuk O;; dks de djuk gS. bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr oRrZeku LFkkiuk cy dks dze’k% ?kVkdj 844 ij ys vkuk gS. LFkkiuk O;; dks de djus ds mnns’; ls gh ,fPNd lsok fuo`fr ;kstuk ykxw dh x;h gS vkSj vusd dkfeZdks dk vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fr nsus dh ;kstuk Hkh izfdz;k esa gS. fopkj.kh; gS fd ;g cSad ,d lgdkjh laLFkk gS ftlds vfLrRo dk ewy iz;kstu d`"kdksa dk fgr gS u fd ek= vius dkfeZdks dh O;fDrxr fgr ls laLFkk dk fgr vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gS ;fn LFkkiuk O;; de ugh fd;k x;k rks cSad dk vfLrRo gh [krjs es iM tk;sxk vr% Li"V gS fd cSad vHkh Hkh mijksDr of.kZr dkfeZdks ds iqufuZ;qfDr ds l{ke ugh gS“ In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Bank is passing through a critical phase of its existence may be in a financial crisis. In such a situation, it is not possible for this Court to direct for regularisation of the petitioner. The impugned order cannot be faulted 7. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 7