The main legal point established is that the failure to establish appointment as a Class-IV employee led to the rejection of claims, but evidence of regular payment resulted in the direction for appointment.

The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 22.12.2015.

2. This is the second attempt by the petitioners before this Court. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.831 of 2013, a reasoned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur on 22.12.2015. Still, the petitioners have failed to disclose that they were regularly appointed.

3. The petitioner no.1 has claimed that he was working as 'Translator' since 2004. Admittedly, there is no letter of appointment issued to the petitioner. The respondent-authority has recorded that the petitioner was engaged by M/s Panem Coal Mines Ltd. as Computer Operator where he used to translate Khatiyans in Hindi. This has not been disputed by the petitioner by producing any document which would establish that he was appointed in the Collectorate or any other office of the State government on a Class-IV post. Petitioner no.2 claims that he was working as 'Ummidwar Peon' in Pakur Collectorate since 2004. He has also failed to produce the letter of his appointment. The document produced by him vide Annexure-2 reads “Theka Parishramik”. He has produced a chart of payment made to the persons engaged during General Election, 2009. None of the documents produced by these petitioners would establish that they were appointed/worked on daily-wages in the Pakur Collectorate or different government offices on a Class-IV post. The applications for appointment on Class-IV posts were invited pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 2010. The District Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 05.10.2012 had taken a decision to grant 20 marks to those candidates who were appointed on daily-wages in Class-IV in government offices. The facts pleaded by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 do not establish that they were working on a Class-IV post in a government office and while so, I find no infirmity in the rejection of their claim by the impugned order dated 22.12.2015.

4. Insofar as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, he has produced a document supplied to him under R.T.I. which would disclose that he has been paid regularly at least from March, 2008 till October, 2010. By the impugned order dated 22.12.2015, claim of the petitioner has been declined on the ground that he was not working in the Pakur Collectorate or any other office on a sanctioned Class-IV post. Neither the Advertisement No.01 of 2010 nor the decision of the District Establishment committee in its meeting held on 05.10.2012 disclose that only those persons who worked on a sanctioned Class-IV post on daily-wages shall be awarded 20 additional marks. Since the pleading in this respect is lacking, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur-respondent no.2 is directed to pass an order for appointment of petitioner no.3, if any other Class-IV employee not working on a sanctioned vacant post has been granted 20 additional marks and forward the recommendation for his appointment.

5. The writ petition is allowed insofar as, petitioner no.3 is concerned.