Pradeep Rai vs The State of Bihar

Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. (Oral)—Both the limitation petition as well as the appeal is required to be dismissed because a delay of almost two years in moving the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained in I.A. No. 8826 of 2013. Coming to the merits of the appeal even if the delay is ignored, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the facts pleaded by the appellant himself in the writ application that he was terminated way back on 10.07.1995 as a daily-wager. He challenged his removal by filing a writ application, CWJC No. 8699 of 1995 which was dismissed on 26.11.1995 and then even his appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Now by innovation of law, he filed a fresh writ application pleading that his case for regularization should be reconsidered in the light of the Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (2) PLJR (SC) 363.

Such submission was also considered and negated keeping in mind the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka v. M.L.Kesari reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 on the ground that person must complete ten years of service as on the date of Constitution Bench judgment, which was rendered on 10.04.2006. The appellant had been removed from service almost a decade back, therefore, the learned Single Judge refused to pass any order or grant any relief.

No legal infirmity has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ application. The appeal, therefore, is required to be dismissed along with the limitation petition. The same are dismissed.