IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6963 of 2009 Surendra Prasad Gupta & Ors. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 02.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The writ petition was filed on 18.6.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General as also on the counsel for the Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad (successor body of the “Biswas Board”). Counter affidavit has been filed by the latter denying any answerability on the ground that the petitioners were daily wage workers in the Board and that there existed no scheme for regularization under the Board. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Over two years time was more than sufficient for the State to realize its duty for assisting the Court in timely dispensation of justice by filing a counter affidavit. The Court is not inclined to grant any further indulgence to the State as that can only now be at the cost of denying timely justice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages in the PHED and their services were transferred to Biswas Board in 1985 where they also acquired work charged status. Subsequently they were given an option by the Board 2 to either go back to the PHED or to continue in the Board as a daily wage. The petitioners opted for the latter. They came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of 2005 seeking regularization of their services. The Court on 19.12.2006 noticed the submission of the petitioners that they were shuttled between the Board and the PHED and their cases were not being recommended to the concerned committee for recommendation on regularization in light of the guidelines. The Court directed the PHED to refer the case of the petitioners to the Committee for consideration if they fell within the cut off date, originally 1985 subsequently advanced to 1990. Subsequently the Chief Engineer PHED has passed an order dated 22.5.2007 declining to refer the case of the petitioners to the Committee holding that the benefit of the regularization was available only to Government servants and not to those who had been transferred to the Biswas Board. It is submitted that this decision by the Chief Engineer is without jurisdiction in view of the order of the Court directing the PHED to refer it to the Committee. The decision was to be taken by the Committee and not by the Chief Engineer. Any further enquiry, if it was required to be made, had to be so 3 done by the Committee itself. Counsel for the State is unable to satisfy the Court that the order dated 22.5.2007, being an individual decision of the Chief Engineer was in compliance with the directions of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of 2005 which vested jurisdiction exclusively in the Committee concerned. It is therefore held that the decision dated 22.5.2007 is not sustainable being in teeth of the directions of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of 2005. It is accordingly set aside. Mandamus is issued to the PHED to act in accordance with the directions in C.W.J.C. No. 3998 of 2005 and take a decision in accordance with law through the Committee concerned within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them, if not already taken. Let the respondents file their affidavit of compliance within a period of three months. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions when it shall be listed under the heading “Orders” after three months on the aspect of compliance only. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)