IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7674 OF 2003 MD. JUBAIR ALAM, SON OF LATE MD. GULAM NABI, RESIDENT OF TOWN NAWADAH (HOSPITAL ROAD, HATPUR), P.O. & P.S. NAWADAH, DISTRICT NAWADAH……………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, NAWADAH 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, NAWADAH 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, SADAR HOSPITAL, NAWADAH………………………………..RESPONDENTS ----------- 4. 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate No. I for the respondents. Petitioner, who claims himself to be a driver working under the respondent Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nawadah, has prayed in this writ application for quashing of the order dated 3.10.1997 contained in Annexure-4 by which his services and of others have been dispensed with. He has further prayed for reinstatement of his service as Ambulance Driver in the Sadar Hospital, Nawadah and for payment of his arrears of salary. Petitioner has annexed documents from which it appears that he was appointed on ad hoc basis for three months by an order dated 6.9.1996 (Annexure-1). Subsequently, his service was - 2 - extended for further period of three months by order dated 22.11.1996 (Annexure-2). His service was again extended for a period of three months by order dated 10.1.1997 (Annexure-3). In this order it was specifically mentioned that service of ad- hoc appointees shall be treated as dispensed with on the expiry of extended period. By order dated 14.5.1997 (Annexure-3/A) services of the petitioner was further extended for a further period of three months with the same stipulation that on completion of the extended period, his services shall stand dispensed with. It appears that thereafter Civil Surgeon passed the impugned order dated 3.10.1997 (Annexure-4) by which he directed all the Incharge Medical Officers and other officers under him in the District to dispense with the services of such persons working on ad hoc basis. The said order was accompanied with a list of such employees posted in different offices. The name of the petitioner finds mentioned at serial no.10 of the list. It appears that services of the petitioner were dispensed with thereafter. Petitioner filed several representations for payment of his salary claiming that he was - 3 - continuing in service with the respondents. The said representations of the petitioner are Annexures 5, 6, 6/A, and 7. Since salary of the petitioner was not paid, petitioner moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 12233 of 2002 which he withdrew on 13.11.2002 to pursue his representation (Annexure-8). He again filed representations as contained in Annexures 9 and 10 and when no order was passed on the representations, petitioner has moved this Court again through this writ application. Petitioner submits that another incumbent whose name figured in the list enclosed as Annexure-4, had moved this Court and this Court had directed his salary to be paid for the period he had actually worked. It goes without saying that petitioner is entitled for his salary for the period he had rendered his services with the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is still rendering service with the respondents as and when his services are requisitioned and payment is being made to him on daily wages basis. Even if statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct, this arrangement is - 4 - obviously only in the exigency of situation and if any particular authority or officer requisitions services of the petitioner on a particular day or particular days, he is personally liable to pay him his remuneration as admissible to a daily wager. But this does not give a right to the petitioner to continue in service. Appointment of the petitioner itself stipulated that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and his services were extended by the respondents from time to time and ultimately, his services were dispensed with. No right accrues to the petitioner on the basis of such engagement. This Court does not find any merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. However, any arrear of salary of petitioner for the work rendered by him on ad hoc basis or on daily wage basis must be paid to him expeditiously. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)