IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12386 of 2007 VISHWABANDHU SON OF SRI VIJAY BHUSHAN, RESIDENT OF CHATTA BAZAR PARTI TOLI, P.S. TOWN DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) P.H.E.D., PATNA. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.E.D., MECHANICAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. ENGINEERING MECHANICAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. with CWJC No.12533 of 2007 SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI MATHURA PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JARANG GOTOLI, PS. GAIGHAT, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) P.H.E.D., PATNA. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.H.E.D., MECHANICAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. ENGINEERING MECHANICAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Banwari Sharma & Shiv Kumar. For the State :- Mr. J. P. Karn, AAG IX & Mr. A. K. Dubey, A.C. to A.A.G. IX ------ - 2 - 2 17/08/2010 Reason for the petitioners to approach the High Court is the failure of the respondents to take a decision with regard to their claim for absorption and regularization on the post of pump operators despite the direction of the Division Bench dated 13.07.2006 passed in a batch of writ applications which were C.W.J.C. No. 7359 of 2002 (Ram Tapeshwar Sah and others Vs. State of Bihar & Others) and analogous cases contained in annexure-7. Submission of the learned counsel is that out of 26 persons who had approached the High Court earlier for a direction, 24 already stand regularized on the post after verification of records by the so called Committee constituted on the direction of the High Court but the case of the petitioners was left out for no apparent reason. It is the stand of the petitioners that juniors to the petitioners who were appointed have been absorbed but because of certain error or omission committed at the local level, case of the petitioners was not considered even though the petitioners were appointed as a pump khalasi by a common order dated 14.3.1988 in the district of Muzaffarpur along with large number of other persons, as is evident from - 3 - annexure-1. Petitioners in the supplementary affidavit have brought on record various communications which have been made by the Executive Engineer recommending the case of the petitioners for consideration in the facts and circumstances indicated in those communications and repeated letters written to the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar has not begotten any response on the issue. Unfortunately for the petitioners as well as this Court, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not shade much light on the issue raised by the petitioners on the actual status with regard to claim of the petitioners for such absorption. Affidavit is more in terms of generality than specific. No reason has been indicated as to why the case of the petitioners has not been considered or that why the respondents superior authorities have decided to ignore the communications made by the Executive Engineer of P.H.E.D., Muzaffarpur. Obviously, it is a case of indifference to the plight of a low paid employee by the powers that be. - 4 - Both these writ applications are disposed of with a direction upon respondent no. 3 i.e. the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Public Health Engineering Department, Patna that taking cue from various communications including letter no. 484 dated 30.05.2008 and other similar communications, he shall issue necessary guidelines to the Executive Engineer on the issue of absorption of the present petitioners in light of the recommendations made not only by the High Court in its earlier order but also on the request made by the petitioners and recommended by the local authority in this regard. Contention of the learned counsel is that it is not only a case of discrimination where juniors have been accommodated but also a case where the posts do exist but indifference to the right of the petitioners has forced them to come to the Court a second time over for the same issue. The Court expects a decision in this regard to be communicated by respondent no. 3 after due deliberations within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. Both the writ applications stand disposed of. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)