IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4654 of 2007 1. Gopal Prasad Yadav, SON OF LATE PERU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GUGALIDIH, P.S.- KUNDA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. 2. SUBODH PASWAN, SON OF LATE PRABHU PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIMARIYA, P.S.- KHAIRA, DISTRICT- JAMUI :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR CIRCLE, BIHAR. 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR CIRCLE, BIHAR. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, JHAJHA DIVISION, DISTRICT- JAMUI, BIHAR :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/S. Rajeev Ranjan, Bela Singh, Advocates. For the State :- Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. 4. ===== 6. 15.11.2011. During the pendency of the writ petition Petitioner No. 2 left for his heavenly abode. In the circumstances, his petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the heirs and legal representative to pursue the matter if the cause of action survives. 2. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner No. 1 and the State. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was engaged as a Muster Roll worker. Considering his satisfactory discharge of duties he was brought in the Work Charge Establishment under Letter No. 565 dated 14.3.1986. Entry of Petitioner No. 1 in the Work Charge Establishment was after the cut off date fixed for entry in the Work Charge Establishment 2 i.e. 21.10.1984 under resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987. Appreciating the fact that Petitioner No. 1 and others were brought in the Work Charge Establishment contrary to the instructions of the State Government contained in resolution dated 23.10.1987 Petitioner No. 1 and others were reverted to serve as Muster Roll Worker under office order bearing Memo No. 22 dated 10.1.2004, Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Having reverted Petitioner No. 1 and others from Work Charge Establishment to serve as Muster Roll Worker Petitioner No. 1 was also disengaged and he questioned his disengagement by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1655 of 2004. Aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 1655 of 2004 was disposed of under orders dated 21.09.2005, Annexure-2 herein. The High Court under orders dated 21.09.2005 did not interfere with the disengagement of Petitioner No. 1 as Muster Roll Worker, direction was, however, given to the State-respondents to consider the case of Petitioner No. 1 for regularization against a Class- IV post. In compliance of the direction of the High Court given under order dated 21.09.2005 the State respondents passed order bearing Memo No. 10 dated 2.1.2006, Annexure-3, whereunder request of Petitioner No. 1 for regularization against a Class-IV post has been rejected on the 3 ground that he has not completed 240 days prior to the cut off date fixed for regularization of the Muster Roll Worker i.e. 11.12.1990 further observing in paragraphs 6, 7 of the order that there is neither work nor post available against which petitioner no. 1 can be regularized. This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the aforesaid order dated 2.1.2006 and with reference to the instruction of the Deputy Secretary of the Water Resources Department, contained in Letter No. 1415 dated 23.3.2006, Annexure-4 it is submitted that perusal of the instruction dated 23.3.2006 would indicate that the authorities while passing the order dated 2.1.2006 were not aware about the actual availability of the vacancy and work in the office in which petitioner was engaged and serving earlier as Muster Roll worker. 4. Instruction of the Deputy Secretary of the Water Resource Department contained in Letter No. 1415 dated 23.3.2006 only indicates that after reversion of the petitioner and others from the Work Charge Establishment under order dated 10.1.2004, Annexure-1 they continued to serve as a Muster Roll worker until 30.1.2006 and for the said period the instruction is to pay Petitioner No. 1 and others. From the instructions contained in letter dated 23.3.2006, Annexure-4 it 4 does not appear to me that there is any vacancy of Class-IV post and work available in the office in which petitioner no. 1 was engaged as a Muster Roll worker. On the basis of the contents of letter dated 23.3.2006 I am not inclined to quash the impugned order dated 2.1.2006, Annexure-3. This writ petition, however, is disposed of directing the authorities to consider the case of Petitioner No. 1 and others who were reverted along with him under order dated 10.1.2004 as and when there is vacancy in the office of the Minor Irrigation Circle, Bhagalpur, or exigency of service to engage Muster Roll Worker. Respondent No. 4 to 6 are also directed to forward the case of petitioner no. 1 to Collector, Jamui for being empanelled and appointment as Class-IV employee in the Collectorate, Jamui, its attached offices and offices of other line department situate in the district of Jamui. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)