IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14797 of 2009 MANOJ KUMAR PANKAJ S/O RAMESHWAR PRASAD R/O NAVIN NAGAR, NEAR GOVARDHAN MANDIR, P.O. & P.S.- NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA, PRESENTLY POSTED AT BLOCK OFFICE, NARHAT, NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 8. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA ----------- 2 19-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is apparent from Annexure-1 to the writ application that the petitioner came to be appointed under order No.02/2005-06 dated 3.1.2006 in the Collectorate at Nawadah by the orders of the District Magistrate figuring his name at Sl.No.14. The order explicitly recites that in pursuance of the specified order of this Court, and the - 2 - constitution of a District Appointment Committee, preparation of a panel in accordance with the reservation roster and selection on vacant posts by the Establishment Committee, the appointments have been made. Certain persons appear to have come to this Court aggrieved by their position in the panel of 2006 , from which the petitioner came to be appointed making a general grievance that the panel position of some of them was not commensurate with their earlier panel position. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Vigilance. The petitioner is stated to have joined duty on 5th of January, 2006. The District Magistrate on 19.5.2009 nearly 3 ½ years later has written to the Chief Secretary of the State that the Vigilance report was not available despite passage of three years, because of which he was finding it difficult to disburse payment even while the District Administration required the service of such persons and continued to take work from them . This Court is not concerned with the Vigilance matter. The concern of this Court is Article 23 of the - 3 - Constitution of India which prohibits the government from indulging in “Begar”. Let the Chief Secretary of the State ensure compliance of Article 23 of the Constitution of India forthwith considering the submission on behalf of the petitioner that some employees have died for want of funds. The application stands disposed. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)