Shobhnath Kumar @ Shobhnath Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3975 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Letters Patent Appeal No.1051 of 2019
                                         In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.428 of 2019
     ======================================================

Shobhnath Kumar @ Shobhnath Kumar Yadav, Son of Nithali Singh @ Bijay Singh, Permanent Resident of Village and P.O.- Barnaw, District- Bhojpur at Ara presently residing at Mohalla- Bandhan Tola, P.S. Ara Nawada, P.O.- GPO Ara, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Under Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Engineer in Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sasaram Circle

5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sasaram Circle

6. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bhojpur, Ara

7. The District Magistrate Bhojpur, Ara

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.Raza Ahmad (AAG-5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 23-08-2023

1. The appeal is against a judgment refusing to issue

directions for continuance of the appellant on daily wages;

which was held to be dependent on the nature of work existing

in the establishment. As far as the claim for daily wages due to Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2019 dt.23-08-2023

him for the period between 11.11.2013 to 27.07.2014, the claim

was directed to be looked into by the authorities on a

representation to be filed by him within two weeks. In appeal,

the learned counsel would strenuously argue for regularization

pointing out that even the juniors appointed as daily wagers

were continued in employment. Learned counsel would also

place reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021 dated 26.07.2021; Vice

Chancellor Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai

Nanubhai Vaghela and Anr. Therein the litigation with respect

to regularization of daily wagers had a chequered carrier. At the

first instance, when it reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it

was disposed of by a decision in Gujarat Agricultural

University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar and Others; (2001) 3 SCC

574. Later on, similarly situated regular workers approached the

High Court which allowed the claim upon which the instant SLP

was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A contention was

taken that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and

Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others; (2006) 4 SCC 1 overruled

the decision in Gujarat Agricultural University (supra). Their

Lordships in the cited decision held that in Gujarat

Agricultural University (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2019 dt.23-08-2023

had approved the proposed scheme of the State of Gujarat and

directed regularization of all those daily wagers who were

eligible in accordance with the scheme, phase-wise. It was held

that the right to be regularized in accordance with the scheme

continues till all the eligible daily wagers are absorbed. It was

also found that creation of additional post for absorption was

staggered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitting the

appellant and the State of Gujarat to implement the scheme

phase-wise. It was found that though Umadevi (3) (supra) in

Paragraph 54 held that any judgment which is contrary to the

principles settled therein would be denuded the status of a

precedent; the binding nature of the decision in Gujarat

Agricultural University (supra) would continue to apply in so

far as the parties to the said judgment are concerned. Hence, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment only ruled on

the binding nature of the earlier judgment, inter parties. The

earlier judgment cannot have the sheen of a precedent nor does

the cited decision have a binding nature especially when it

proceeded on the basis of the approval by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of the scheme of regularization, framed by the State.

2. We find no parallel in the aforesaid case in which

the appellant was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Ara Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2019 dt.23-08-2023

Municipal Corporation on 19.11.1997. Twice, a panel was

prepared for Pump Operators in the year 2013 and 2014 wherein

the appellant's name figured. The appellant's contention is that

since he had asked for the wages which remained unpaid

between 2013 to 2014, he was terminated. The writ petition was

filed in the year 2019. The claim was also for payment of arrears

of wages between 11.11.2013 to 27.07.2014. There is nothing

stated in the writ petition as to the date up to which the appellant

was continued as a Pump Operator. There is also nothing

produced in the writ petition to establish his continuance

between 2013 and 2014. The mere reason that the appellant's

name figured in the panel prepared by the Municipality, for

Pump Operators, does not evidence the fact of appointment or

continuance.

3.We find no reason to entertain the appeal and fully

agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The

decision cited by the appellant is not at all applicable. The mere

appointment as a daily wage employee does not create any right

for regularization. The appointment as a daily wage employee is also

not pleaded or substantiated as carried out in a sanctioned vacancy,

by following the due procedure for appointment which includes

a public advertisement. We are of the opinion that Umadevi (3) Patna High Court L.P.A No.1051 of 2019 dt.23-08-2023

(supra) squarely applies in the case of the appellant and there

can be no claim of regularization. Gross delay also stands

against the claim raised by the appellant.

4. The appeal would stand dismissed.

5. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand

closed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

(Partha Sarthy, J) P.K.P./-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          28.08.2023
Transmission Date