IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12548 of 2008 1. Hemant Kumar Karn, son of Srikrishna Prasad Sinha, resident of Village & P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur. 2. Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Rameshwar Paswan, resident of Village Goversahni, P.O. Khabara, District Muzaffarpur. 3. Dharmendra Kumar, son of Sri Harish Chandra Prasad, resident of Village Dath, P.O. Bharwari, Via Hasanpur, District Samastipur. 4. Sunil Kumar, son of Sri Indra Deo Paswan, resident of Village & P.O. Mohanpur, District Samastipur. 5. Smt. Sunita Kumari, wife of Sri G. Bhuyal Paswan, resident of village Bahadurpur, Ward No.15, Samastipur. 6. Smt. Meera Devi, wife of Sri Yogeshwar Paswan, resident of Village Bahadurpur, Ward No.15, District Samastipur. 7. Smt. Manju Kumari, wife of Sri Shalesh Paswan, resident of Purani Post Office, Ward No.15, District Samastipur. 8. Dilip Paswan, son of Sri Duniya Lal Paswan, resident of Village Bahadurpur, Ward No.15, District Samastipur. 9. Arun Kumar, son of Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Village + P.O. Mathurapur, District Samastipur. 10.Suresh Prasad Singh, son of Sri Ramashish Prasad Singh, resident of Village Virsahiya, P.O. Singhiaghat, P.S. Bibhutipur, District Samastipur…………………………………………………………..………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Main Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Samastipur. 4. The Additional Collector-cum-Senior Officer, Public Grievance Cell, Samastipur. 5. The Deputy Collector (Najarat), Samastipur. 6. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Samastipur. 7. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur. 8. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Samastipur. 9. The District Planning Officer, Samastipur………………………………………………….………….Respondents 2 ---------------------------------- 3 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be given an opportunity to satisfy the concerned authority that appointment of the petitioners was irregular only and not illegal and hence, they are entitled to be considered for their regularistion in terms of paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in 2006(2) PLJR 363 (SC). It is true that if any person appointed on temporary/daily wage/ad hoc basis had continued for ten years as on the date of judgment of the Constitution Bench, in terms of the mandate contained in paragraph 44, his case has to be considered for regularisation, or otherwise, within the parameters laid down in the said paragraph itself. The Constitution Bench has made it clear that if appointees are 3 found to have continued for ten years or more and their appointments are found only irregular, and not illegal, they should be regularized. The Constitution Bench has made it clear that no person should be allowed to continue on ad hoc basis/daily wages/ on stop-gap arrangement any further, except in special contingency for a very short period for the purpose of immediate work to be done. In view of the said law laid down by the Constitution Bench, final orders, either way, in terms of the observations of the Constitution Bench as made in paragraph 44, are required to be passed in respect of each employee continuing with them on daily wages/ad hoc, etc. Since petitioners desire for consideration of their cases by their appointing authorities in terms of said paragraph 44 of the Constitution Bench judgment, they are given liberty to do so. If they file any representation for specific consideration of their cases within the parameters laid down in paragraph 44 of the judgment, the competent 4 authority shall do it and pass fresh speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of representation by the petitioners. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)