Patna High Court
Gadadhar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 10 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.362 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16153 of 2010
======================================================
Gadadhar Pandey Son of Late Sheetal Pandey R/O Vill.- Madahpur Chawk,
P.O.- Kharauna (via Pitahi), P.S.- Muzaffarpur Sadar, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Special Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Director of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha (AAG-7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 10-01-2024
The present L.P.A. is filed against the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2019 passed in C.W.J.C.
No.16153 of 2010.
2. The present case is a chequred history in
approaching this Court time and again for the purpose of
claiming regularization with effect from 09.01.1979. The
appellant has failed to apprise this Court the decision/
notification in respect of taking over the District Industries
Centre, Muzaffarpur under which organization the appellant was
working. He had contended that pursuant to the earlier
litigation, the concerned respondents have proceeded to pass
Patna High Court L.P.A No.362 of 2019 dt.10-01-2024
order on 03.03.2003 while assigning the date of regularization
with effect from 28.02.1994. Despite the fact of the
aforementioned decision of the respondents and the fact that he
is entitled to regularization with effect from 09.01.1979, he has
pursued the matter further. It is also to be noted that he had
attained the age of superannuation and retired from service with
effect from 31.07.2001. As on the date of his retirement, District
Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur, was not taken over, as is evident
from the record, the aforementioned Industries Centre is stated
to have been taken over in the year 2003.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that identical District Industries Centres of other
Districts were taken over by the State Government earlier and
such of those persons who are/were working in those Industries
have been absorbed with effect from 09.01.1979 and there is
discrimination among the similarly situated persons who are
working in the different District Industries Centres. It is also
submitted that by virtue of order of this Court, the concerned
officials have determined the date of absorption as 28.02.1994
instead of 09.01.1979.
4. The appellant could not apprise this Court in
respect of producing and apprising this Court relating to taking
Patna High Court L.P.A No.362 of 2019 dt.10-01-2024
over the District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur, so as to read
the relevant provision or a clause to the extent that what are the
assets and liabilities taken over by the State Government and
further service conditions of such of those employees who are
working in the then District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur was
required to be examined to the extent whether is it
retrospectively taken over with effect from 09.01.1979 so as to
consider the grievance of the appellant in respect of absorption
with effect from 09.01.1979 or not. In the absence of statutory
vested right of the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to have
the benefit of absorption with effect from 09.01.1979 merely on
the ground that identical District Industries Centres of other than
Muzaffarpur District have been taken over by the State
Government and certain benefits have been extended to such of
those employees who are/were working with the concerned the
then District Industries Centre of the respective district.
Question of discrimination is not attracted for the reasons that
factual aspect of taking over the particular District Industries
Centre, is relevant material. That apart, the appellant has not
furnished the relevant document in respect of taking over the
District Industries Centre, Muzaffarpur, so as to peruse the same
to the effect that it has retrospective effect or not.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.362 of 2019 dt.10-01-2024
5. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Central
Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another
Versus Bikartan Das and others, reported in AIR 2023
Supreme Court 4011 distinguished in respect of service
condition of two sets of employees who are working in the same
cadre and drawing a different pay-scale in such circumstances it
has taken note of that there is no discrimination on the factual
aspect of the matter.
6. In the present case, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that identical persons who are working in
other than the Muzaffarpur District Industries Centre have been
extended absorption from earlier date has no assistance to the
appellant as long as taking over the District Industries Centre,
Muzaffarpur with retrospective date. Accordingly there is no
infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.01.2024.
Transmission Date NA
