IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2220 of 2010 1. AWADHESH PODDAR S/O LATE PRAYAG PODDAR R/O VILL.- CHAUDHARY COLONY, COLLEGE ROAD, NIRMAYA ROAD, P.O.- SAHEBGANJ, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTT.- SAHEBGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT,PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER WATER RESOUCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 5. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 6. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHAGALPUR 7. EXECUTIVE EGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GANGA PUMP CANAL, DIVISION NO.- 2, BATESHWER STHAN KAHALGAON CAMP, SHIV NARAYANPUR, BHAGALPUR. Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. Anand Kr. Mishra, Adv. M.N. Ojha, Adv. Advocate for the Respondents:Mr. Anil Kumar, A/C to S.C.XII ----------- 2/ 16/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner was employed as a daily wage labourer on 23.10.1973 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, Sahibganj. He was terminated on 29.8.1981 which was set aside by the award by the Labour Court in Reference Case No.3/82 dated 28.5.1983. He was again removed from service on 3.9.1984 leading to his reinstatement in Reference Case - 2 - No.17/87 on 21.12.1990 with full back wages. The award not having been implemented he moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2316/93, allowed on 13.1.1994. He was reinstated by order dated 18.11.1995 and paid his dues subject to the result of S.L.P. (Civil) No.3497/96 preferred by the respondents. The S.L.P. was dismissed on 12.2.1996. Contending that his services should not have been regularized from 18.11.1995, but with effect from 29.8.1981 the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No.5506/01 for shifting the date of regularization. The writ petition came to be tagged with a batch of analogous writ petitions referred to a three-man committee to consider cases for regularization in accordance with the judgement in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The case of the petitioner has then been considered for regularization by the three-man committee, declined relief by an order dated 25.9.2008 and consequently his services have been terminated by an order dated 24.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the writ application on merits with regard to his claim for regularization from 29.8.1981 made an alternative submission to hold that there was no occasion for the respondents to re-consider his regularization in light of - 3 - their earlier decision to do so with effect from 18.11.1995. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Paragraph-3 specifically states that his services had been regularized with effect from 18.11.1995 in pursuance of the order dated 1.11.1997. The respondents having acknowledged that the petitioner had been regularized earlier itself, it is held that there was no occasion for the respondent to re- consider regularization when in C.W.J.C. No.5506/01 no such directions are stated to have been issued to re- consider the decision of regularization taken earlier. The writ petition having been disposed off with a general order there appears to have been some inadvertent error on the part of the respondents in consideration of his case appropriately for shifting of the date of regularization. The impugned orders do not even notice the earlier order of regularization with effect from 18.11.1995, acknowledged in the counter affidavit. It is apparent that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage. If he claims to be reinstated by the Labour Court it was in that capacity. Any subsequent order for his regularization on 1.11.1997 with effect from 18.11.1995 can have prospective effect only. This Court finds no merit in the writ application - 4 - insofar as the claim for regularization from 29.8.1981 is concerned. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned orders dated 25.9.2008 and 24.12.2009. The two impugned orders are therefore quashed and set aside. If the petitioner has any grievances with regard to arrears of salary, he may represent for the same which is to be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. The writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)