IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15163 of 2005 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- MARANPUR, P,.S. CIVIL LINES, TOWN AND DISTRICT- GAYA…………………..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GAYA 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GAYA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GAYA………………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- 12 6-4-2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner had to approach this Court on several occasions as would be evident from orders passed in different writ petitions preferred by him which are annexures-1,2,3 and 4 to the writ petition. It is evident that in the year 1996 he was taken into service of Gaya Municipal Corporation on daily wages and thereafter an order dated 3-12-1997 contained in annexure-12 was purportedly passed in his favour confirming him in service as a regular employee. That order did not yield any material benefit to the petitioner as it was not implemented and some enquiries followed leading to termination of his service which was challenged by the petitioner and the termination order was quashed by order contained in annexure-3. However, liberty was granted to the Corporation that it could take action in respect of petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner’s 2 service was again terminated in the year 2000 and that order was also set aside in the year 2002 vide order contained in annexure-4 which shows that petitioner also sought a direction for absorption in service of the Corporation. The Court did not pass any positive direction in that regard but permitted the petitioner to make a request for the same before the Administrator of the Corporation. Pursuant to the order contained in annexure-4 petitioner’s request was considered and by order dated 30th June2003 contained in annexure-5 his first appointment on daily wages was accepted to be valid and such appointment was confirmed. That order dated 30th June, 2003 resulted in to grant of regular scale to the petitioner with effect from February, 2003 as per stand of the respondents. On that basis dues of the petitioner have been paid by the Corporation. The petitioner wants payment in appropriate scale as regular employees of the Corporation since 3-12-1997 on the basis of annexure-12. The aforesaid issue is not difficult to be resolved in the light of order of this Court contained in annexure-4 which clearly shows that petitioner was fully aware that he had not 3 been absorbed in service of the Corporation because earlier order had never been implemented and in fact pursuant to further enquiries his service had been terminated by the Corporation In view of aforesaid facts this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the matter. It is not possible to direct the Corporation, in the facts of the case, to review the order contained in annexure-5 and to grant scale to the petitioner as a regular employee with effect from 3-12-97. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that due to subsequent knowledge petitioner believes that he has been paid his dues in lower scale of Rs.12,00/- per month whereas he is entitled to calculation of dues on a higher pay as has been paid to the other employees occupying similar post . Learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that other employees have been paid higher salary although on the same post because of their having longer length of service whereby they have acquired higher increments etc. Such a claim of the petitioner is not specifically 4 pleaded in the writ petition and therefore is not being decided in this writ petition. The facts mentioned in the supplementary affidavit may be pressed before the Corporation through a fresh representation and if such a claim is raised before the Corporation, an appropriate decision should be taken in the matter and the same be communicated to the petitioner at an early date, preferably within three months from the date of filing of the representation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision, he may pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)