Patna High Court CWJC No.6950 of 2010 (4) dt.18-10-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6950 of 2010 ====================================================== Shiv Shankar Singh & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7137 of 2010 ====================================================== Yogendra Jha & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.6950 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr.Ambastha Mr. /Mrs.Sudha Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc4) (In CWJC No.7137 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr.Ambastha Mr. /Mrs.Sudha Kumari For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc3) ====================================================== 4 18-10-2011 These two writ applications were filed in April, 2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was meant to facilitate expeditious filing of a counter affidavit to assist the Court in dispensation of justice. A period of one and a half years has been considered insufficient by the respondents for the purpose. The order-sheet reflects that even specific adjournments on more than one occasion has not been sufficient to persuade the respondents to perform their constitutional duty of assisting this Court in the dispensation of justice. On 20.9.2011 the Court had also Patna High Court CWJC No.6950 of 2010 (4) dt.18-10-2011 observed that considering the impending superannuation of petitioner No.2 in December, 2011 (in C.W.J.C. No.6950/10) the Court may not necessarily adjourn the matter further and may proceed to dispose the writ petitions on basis of materials on record at the stage of admission, if possible, even if no counter affidavit was filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has sought instructions but has received none. The claim in the two writ applications is for regularization claiming to be working in work charged capacity since 1.8.1985. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue for regularization of work charged employees as decided by the Division Bench of this Court on challenge by the State has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner may ascertain the details of the same and represent before the respondents when they are required to decide the claims in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ applications are disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)