IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16964 of 2009 1. SHIV JHA S/O LATE RAMNARAYAN JHA R/O VILL- BANGAON, P.S. BAJPATTI, DISTT. SITAMARHI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTERY OF RAILWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, ZONAL OFFICE, HAJIPUR. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, ZONAL OFFICE, HAJIPUR. 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATION MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONNEL) SAMASTIPUR. ----- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03. 05.02.2010 Heard Mr. V.R.P.Sinha for the petitioner, and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th June, 2009 (Annexure- 11), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A.No. 158 of 2007 (Shiv Jha vrs. The Union of India and ors.), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the original application. The respondent authorities had declined to regularize the services of the petitioner in the Indian Railways. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was originally engaged as a casual labour in the Railway establishment on 01.09.1976. He worked as such for sometime and his services were not regularized. He was ultimately granted temporary status in 2 1994, which was approved at the local level, but was in due course disapproved by the superior authority leading to the original application. It appears that petitioner had worked for sometime as a casual labour. He had approached the Station Master, Bajpatti, to regularize his services but was informed that the Station Master will have to obtain approval of the superior authority as a result of which the petitioner had turned violent and manhandled the Station Master. He had also snatched Rs. 2000/- from him leading to criminal case. It further appears that the petitioner had created a reign of terror in the area as a result of which witnesses did not appear in support of the prosecution case resulting to petitioner’s acquittal. Another important aspect of the matter is that he had approached the Station Master for regularization of his services after he remained absent for two years. Yet another important aspect of the matter which needs our consideration is that the petitioner was at the local level granted temporary status in 1994, which was disapproved by the superior authorities and found that temporary status was granted to him during the period of his continuous absence for 19 nears ever since 1990, notwithstanding which he was granted temporary status in 1994. Was it the result of reign of terror created by the petitioner? In such circumstances, we entirely agree with the decision of the respondent authorities, and affirmed by the 3 learned Tribunal, that the authorities had rightly declined to regularize the services of the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Sym/ (S.K.Katriar,J) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)