IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14465 of 2003 SRI KAPILESHWAR RAM @ KAPLESHWAR RAM, son of late Sadhu Ram, resident of village Khutauna, P.S. Khutauna, District Madhubani, at present working as Sweeper in C.M.J. College Donwari hat Khutauna, P.S. Khutauna, Distt. Madhubani under the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga ... Petitioner Versus 1. THE V.C.,L.N.M.UNIVERSITY, Darbhanga 2. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga 3. The Principal C.M.J. College Danwari hat, Khutauna, P.O. Khutauna, P.s. Babubarhi, District Madhubani 4. Sri Nirmal Prakash Singh, the then Secretary C.M.J.College Donwari hat, P.O. Khutauna, P.S. Babubarhi, Distt. Madhubani at present residing at village and P.O. Ekhari, P.S. Ladania, District Madhubani ... Respondents ----------- 3. 29.10.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for L.N.Mithila University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “i) For that a direction to be given to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner since the date of appointment on daily wages on the post of Sweeper since 7.3.79 and further may be directed to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.” It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed by the governing body of the affiliated college and he is continuing since 1979 as a Sweeper in the 2 College but for the last 31 years he is being paid his salary as daily wages. It has further been submitted that there is sanctioned post of Sweeper in the College and once the College was made a Constituent unit the Vice Chancellor of the University was required to take a decision in terms of section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State University Act as with regard to absorbing the petitioner on the post of Sweeper on which he was working prior to the College becoming constituent unit of Mithila University. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention towards series of representation filed by the petitioner, which according to him have also yielded no effective response from the University and its officials. Counsel for the University has as usual drawn a blank face by taking a plea that he has got no instruction. This case was filed on 19.12.2003 and if in a space of nearly seven years counsel for the University has not been given any instruction nor a counter affidavit has been filed, this Court cannot keep waiting 3 endlessly for such filing of the counter affidavit. Normally in a case of this nature where a person is said to be continued for the last 31 years regularization of service would only mean that his previous services being recognized he may become entitled to payment of his salary in the prescribed pay scale with post retirement benefit. A daily wager will not get such benefit either of the prescribed pay scale or the retirement benefit. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondent University and its Vice Chancellor as well as the Registrar to examine the case of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is continuing for the last 31 years and doing work of Sweeper his services will be regularized with consequential benefits. Though he will not be entitled for payment of any arrears but his continuity in service will be taken into account for past services rendered by him after the College became constituent keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court in the 4 case of State of Karnataka & ors. vs. M.L.Kesari & ors., reported in AIR 2010 S.C. 2587, wherein the Constitution Bench Judgment of Uma Devi, AIR 2006 S.C. 1806, has been explained in the following terms: “8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Uma Devi (AIR 2006 SC 1806: 2006 AIR SCW 1991, Para 44) is two-fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Uma Devi 2006 AIR SCW 1991 was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wages/ ad hoc/ casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than then years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the 5 protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not under taken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.” Admittedly the petitioner has continued in service for a period of 31 years, inasmuch as there is no counter affidavit denying this fact. In that view of the matter, the University will be under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner as one-time exercise as held in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and reiterated in the case of M.L.Kesari (supra). In order to expedite the matter this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a compact representation enclosing a copy of this order as also necessary proof of his continuous working in 6 the College, whereafter the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University will take necessary decision within a period of six months of filing of such representation by the petitioner. It goes without saying that any decision that would be taken will be backed by a reasoned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/