Letters Patent Appeal No.1159 OF 2000 (Against the judgment and order dated 01.09.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1630 of 1998). STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------------------------------------- (APPELLANTS) VERSUS CHANDRAIKA RAM & ORS------------------------------------ (RESPONDENTS) For the appellants: Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma J.C. to G.A.5 For the respondents: Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C. M.Prasad, J.J. The writ petitioners-respondents came to this Court contending that they have been engaged by the Government as daily wages workers since prior to 1st August, 1985 and are continuing to discharge their duties as such. It was contended that Government has taken a policy decision that daily wages workers appointed before 1st August, 1985 shall be considered for appointment in the permanent establishment. It was contended in the writ petition that despite a right having been created in favour of the writ petitioners for consideration of their case for regularization, based on a policy decision of the Government, the Officers and employees of the State Government, who have been entrusted with the obligation of looking into such right of - 2 - the writ petitioners, are sitting tight over the matter. The writ court in the back ground of the fact that the petitioners were appointed before 1st August, 1985 and there is a policy decision of the Government to bring them in the permanent establishment of the State, by the judgment and order under appeal rendered on 1st September, 1999, directed the respondents to examine the case of the writ petitioners and also their claim for salary at the minimum scale, which, according to the writ petitioners, people similarly circumscribed but much junior to the petitioners, were getting. Despite being approached by the writ petitioners to consider the cases of the petitioners, and the Court having directed the Officers and the employees of the State to discharge their obligation on the basis the said policy decision of the Government, the instant frivolous appeal was preferred only to buy time. In paragraph 4 of the memo of appeal the following statements have been made:- “Their regularization would be done according to their initial date of engagement and the number of regular posts available at any relevant time, but in near future no appointment will be made due to non-functioning of the schemes. The matter is under enquiry by the Member, Board - 3 - of Revenue and policy decision will be taken after the enquiry report is received.” The statement is that there is no vacancy and regularization will be made if further policy decision is taken by the Member, Board of Revenue. It has not been indicated that from 1985 till the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 21st August, 2000, no vacancy cropped up even by death or retirement. Surprisingly Member, Board of Revenue feels himself to be above the government and accordingly until he takes a policy decision, he has no obligation to discharge his obligations founded on the policy decision of the government. As and when we made an effort to hear the appeal, attempts were made by the appellants to take time. We called for a report on 3rd July, 2005 through the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department of the State, indicating what step has been taken in relation to the writ petitioners pertaining to implementation of the policy of the Government taken in 1993 for regularization of daily wages workers appointed before 1st August, 1985, but no such report has been filed. We granted one adjournment for filing such report on 27th August, 2008 and accordingly the appeal - 4 - Patna High Court, the 4th September,08 N.A.F.R./Ravi was posted for hearing but the learned counsel, engaged by the appellants once again asked for an adjournment. We refuse to grant any further adjournment. From the conduct of the appellants, we are convinced that the State Government and its Officers will not consider the case of the petitioners even in terms of the aforementioned policy decision of the Government. In the premises there being no reason to keep this appeal pending, we dismiss the same with costs of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the State Government to the respondent/petitioners. The prayer for waiver of the costs is expressly refused. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)