IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6039 of 2007 T.M. Rizwanul Haque, son of Late T.M. Gulamul Haque, resident of Mohalla New Marimganj, P.S. Gaya, District Gaya, at present residing at Road No.5, Aliganj, P.S. Chunauti, District Gaya … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar, Patna 4. The Conservator of Forests, Gaya Circle, Gaya 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Gaya 6. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Patna …. … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :Mr. S.C. Mitra, Advocate For the State :Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to AAG-1 04/ 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner served on Class III post on daily wage basis for the period between May, 1984 till March, 2005 but was paid the wages of Class IV post. In the light of the services rendered, he approached this Court for regularization by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2476 of 1998, which was disposed of under orders dated 16.3.2000, Annexure-2 directing the petitioner to represent the matter before the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Magadh Circle, Patna with further direction to the authorities 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In the light of the order of the High Court, the authorities have passed order, bearing Memo No. 24/98-1991 dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-3 and rejected his case observing that he never worked against a sanctioned post and the service rendered by him is only casual in nature. Aforesaid order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-3 was challenged by the petitioner by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3442 of 2000, which was dismissed for default and the restoration petition filed for restoring the said writ petition, bearing MJC No. 2083 of 2006 was also dismissed for default whereafter MJC No. 2778 of 2006 was filed for restoration of MJC No. 2083 of 2006, which was dismissed on merit under order dated 20.2.2007, Annexure-4 observing that having considered the entire matter, the Court was not inclined to accept the submission made in favour of restoration. After refusal of the High Court to restore CWJC No. 3442 of 2000, petitioner filed the present writ petition on 8.5.2007 challenging order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-3 and submitted that the second writ 3 petition assailing order dated 12.7.2000 is maintainable before this Court as correctness and validity of the order dated 12.7.2000 has not been considered by this Court so far. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very premise of the order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-3 that engagement of the petitioner is casual and he does not deserve regularization against Class III post as the post on which petitioner served was never sanctioned, is erroneous and misconceived. It is further submitted that petitioner was serving against non-sanctioned Class III post but was being paid wages of Class IV post and he be considered for regularization against a Class IV post as from Annexure-9, the chart prepared by the authorities of the Gaya Forest Division, where the petitioner discharged duties itself, it will appear that petitioner served the Forest Division in the years 1984-85 for 290 days, 1985-86 for 365 days, 1986-87 for 365 days, 1987-88 for 365 days, 1988-89 for 357 days, 1989-90 for 365 days, 1990-91 for 365 days, 1991-92 for 366 days, 1992-93 for 357 days, 1993-94 for 364 4 days, 1994-95 for 361 days, 1995-96 for 363 days, 1996-97 for 309 days, 1997-98 for 338 days. With reference to the aforesaid chart, Annexure-9, it is submitted that service rendered by the petitioner may be against non-sanctioned Class III post, but considering the number of days and years during which petitioner discharged duties cannot be termed as casual discharge of duties. It is further submitted that petitioner served the Forest Division beyond 1997-98 until March, 2005 but could not procure chart from the authorities for the said period. It is also submitted that from February, 2004 until March, 2005 he was not even paid wages of the Class IV employee, although for the earlier period he has been paid wages of Class IV employee. The fact that petitioner served against a Class III post for sufficient number of years and was paid wages of Class IV employee does not appear to have been considered under the impugned order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure-3 and for failure to consider the services rendered by the petitioner against a Class III post for sufficient number of years on payment admissible to 5 a Class IV employee having not been considered, the impugned order suffers from the vice of non- consideration of a relevant fact, which was required to be considered and for non-consideration of the said fact, the impugned order dated 12.7.2000, Annexure- 3 is set aside with direction to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna to reconsider the request of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the observation made above and if he is unable to regularize the petitioner against a Class IV post then to forward his name to Collector, Gaya for including his name in the panel of the candidate peon prepared and published in the light of the instructions of the State Government contained in circular letter dated 3.12.1980, as clarified under circular letter dated 26.5.1987 and 25.4.1997 with reference to his initial date of engagement in the Forest Division, Gaya after verifying the correctness of the chart, Annexure-9. 4. Necessary order in compliance of my order be passed by the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Respondent no.6 as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of 6 receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya shall verify the claim of the petitioner of having rendered the services for the period between February, 2004 till March, 2005 without payment of wages for the said period and if that be found correct, then to take steps for payment of wages for the aforesaid period within the same time. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)