IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.561 of 2008 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD ----------- For the appellants : Mr. S.K.Ghose, Additional Advocate General-II ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 28th July, 2008 The Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of one hundred and two days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.4401/2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay for the cause shown in the application, we are of the view that appeal is devoid of any substance and does not deserve to be admitted. As a matter of fact, we fail to fathom reason for filing an appeal from an order like this, which is not at all prejudicial to the government. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he has been working on daily wage basis in the Transport Department of the State Government since 27th May, 1981. Mr. S.K.Ghose, Additional Advocate General disputed the correctness of the case of the writ petitioner that he has been working on daily wage basis since 27th May, 1981. According to him, the writ petitioner had been employed on daily wage basis in the Transport Department in the year 1992. We - 2 - asked the Additional Advocate General to show us from the counter affidavit the case set up by the State Government that, in fact, the writ petitioner did not start working on daily wage basis in the Transport Department since 27th of May, 1981. From the counter affidavit filed before the Single Judge, nothing has been shown that the State Government disputed this fact. We have, therefore, no hesitation in taking this fact as correct as has been noticed by the Single Judge in the impugned order that the petitioner has been working on daily wage basis in the Transport Department of the State Government since 27th of May, 1981. 3. Mr. S.K.Ghose, Additional Advocate General-II would then contend that there is no question of regularization of Class III employees. They have to be appointed after following the selection process through Bihar State Staff Selection Commission. He would, thus, submit that the direction of the Single Judge is absolutely erroneous. 4. We are afraid, the Additional Advocate General missed the vital policy framed by the State Government itself whereby they decided to regularize the daily wage employees, who were working on Class III posts prior to 1985. As a matter of fact, in the affidavit filed by the Joint Transport Commissioner before the Single Judge it has been specifically stated, “ so far regularization of service is concerned, it is dealt with in accordance with the aforesaid resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department”. - 3 - 5. Thus, the Joint Transport Commissioner has admitted and obviously has to admit as it has been the policy of the State Government that employees on daily wage working prior to 1985 may be regularized. Needless to say that the regularization has to be made in accord with the policy. The Single Judge has no where in the impugned order directed that the said regularization has to be de hors the policy framed by the State Government. 6. The contention of the Additional Advocate General is wholly misconceived and misplaced ignoring and overlooking the government policy which has been even admitted by the Joint Transport Commissioner in the counter affidavit. 7. The appeal is devoid of any substance. It is dismissed in limine. 8. This disposes of limitation petition being I.A.no.4401 of 2008. 9. Since the Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed in limine, question of interim relief does not arise. The Stay petition (I.A.No.4402/2008) also stands rejected, accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil