Patna High Court
Mahendra Mohan Roy vs Bihar State Electronic Development ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3559 of 2020
======================================================
Mahendra Mohan Roy, Son of Devendra Roy, Resident of Village Tilkaitpur,
P.O.- Newra, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Beltron Bhawan, Shastri
Nagar, Patna Through its Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director, Beltron, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna
through its Managing Director.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijoy Nandan Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Akash Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-02-2025
Heard Mr. Vijoy Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Girijish Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner, who superannuated from the post of
Assembly Operator Technician, Bihar State Electronic
Development Corporation, Patna (for brevity "Beltron"), on
being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in
not regularizing his services, has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court seeking a direction to consider his case for regularization
with effect from the date when the services of the juniors to the
petitioner have been regularized with all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3559 of 2020 dt.17-02-2025
2/6
petitioner in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was duly
appointed on the post of Assembly Operator Technician on
21.07.1986
on daily wage basis. Subsequent thereto, the service
of the petitioner was terminated on 06.11.1987, which order was
put to question by raising an industrial dispute and accordingly,
the matter was referred to Labour Court in Reference Case No.
10 of 1990. Pursuant to the award dated 12.08.1991, the
petitioner was reinstated in service with full back wages along
with other consequential benefits. It is the contention of the
petitioner that in compliance of the award of the Labour Court
as above-noted, the petitioner submitted his joining, however, he
had been directed to submit his joining at BSML, Dhanbad,
where he joined on 18.05.1992 and started working there.
4. The petitioner had also approached this Court on
account of inaction of the respondent authorities in not
considering his case for regularization, in C.W.J.C. No. 3527 of
1993 before the learned Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court.
Considering the claim of the petitioner, based upon parity and
the scheme formulated by the Corporation for absorption of
such employees, the writ petition came to be disposed off vide
order dated 01.03.1994 with a direction to the respondent-
Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner and take final
decision within a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved with
the said order, the Beltron has preferred review application
Patna High Court CWJC No.3559 of 2020 dt.17-02-2025
being Civil Review No. 33 of 1994, however, it came to be
disposed off with a direction to the Beltron that if the claim of
the petitioner has not yet been considered, the same may be
done within a period of three months. It is the contention of the
petitioner that, notwithstanding, the order of learned Ranchi
Bench of Patna High Court, the claim of the petitioner did not
get considered and thus he was again compelled to approach this
Court in C.W.J.C. No.16391 of 2014. The afore-noted writ
petition came to be disposed off with a direction to the
Managing Director, Beltron, Bihar State to consider the claim of
the petitioner for regularization of his service and take decision
in accordance with law. The petitioner represented in pursuant
to the order of this Court and finally the claim of the petitioner
for regularization came to be turned down by the order of the
Managing Director contained in Memo No.4046/19 dated
26.06.2019. This order is also questioned by filing an
interlocutory application in the present writ petition.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is within limited bounds that the persons junior to the
petitioner, who were also identically discharging their duties,
their services have been regularized but discrimination has been
caused to the petitioner and no positive order for regularization
has been passed. Though, the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2018 but yet it is incumbent upon the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3559 of 2020 dt.17-02-2025
respondents to consider the case for regularization of the
petitioner with effect from the date when juniors to the
petitioner have been accorded regularization, inasmuch as the
impugned order passed by the Managing Director, Beltron,
Bihar, Patna, is per se illegal and perverse, having no
consideration of the materials and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Girijesh, learned counsel for the respondents
made a preliminary objection in respect to the delay in invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court with a plea that it can be raised at
any point of time. All the more, when it has never been agitated
and answered at any point of time. It is the contention of the
respondents that there cannot be any retrospective regularization
once the petitioner has already superannuated long back on
31.12.2018. The matter for regularization was twice considered
by the learned Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court as well as this
Court but at no point of time any positive direction was given in
favour of the petitioner nor the case of the petitioner has been
found at par with the persons with whom the petitioner is
seeking parity.
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned
order, learned counsel for the respondents, next contended that
the claim of the petitioner for regularization came to be rejected
on a cogent and justified reason that the regularization or
Patna High Court CWJC No.3559 of 2020 dt.17-02-2025
absorption of daily wage consolidated workers of Beltron's
projects had been need based and in appreciation of the new
skills, which they had acquired in course of working at Beltron
and was useful for Beltron's new activities. Further, at the time
of joining of the petitioner in January 2016, only contractual
posts were available for employees under new re-organizational
structure of BSEDC and no regular post on pay-scale was
available on which his services could have been regularized.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Vinod
Kumar & Others v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327] has
observed that indisputably, the essence of employment and
rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms
of the appointment, when the actual course of employment has
evolved significantly over time and if the continuous service of
an employee rendered in the capacity of regular employee,
performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent
post and his selection through a process akin to regular
recruitment, requires consideration, if it is otherwise not illegal
as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary State of
Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others [(2006) 4
SCC 1]. Albeit, the case in hand referring otherwise, as has been
specifically discussed in the impugned order negating the claim
of the petitioner. Moreover, the absorption of various workers
long back in the year 2008 in different projects were said to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.3559 of 2020 dt.17-02-2025
based on suitable education, technical background and their
need to meet the advance activities in Beltron.
9. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and taking note of the hard fact of superannuation of
the petitioner long back in the year 2018 from a contractual post
on consolidated fixed salary and also the fact that under new
re-organizational structure of BSEDC, no regular post on
pay-scale was available, this Court does not find any merit in
the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25-02-2025
Transmission Date
