The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order rejecting the claim of regularization was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, and the respondents were directed to consider the case of each individual petitioner and pass orders for regularization of their services with all consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since common impugned order dated 9.5.2016 is under challenge in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

Prayers

3. The petitioners have challenged the decision dated 9.5.2016, circulated by Memo No. 2306 dated 16.5.2016 (Annexure-17). Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioners to continue in service as they have worked for almost 25 years. It is also prayed that in view of observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioners in service. A formal prayer for appropriate relief in the facts of the case has also been prayed for.

Factual matrix

4. The facts of all these writ petitions are same and similar, save and except the formal dates of joining of petitioners and numbers of writ petitions, which were filed in the light of order dated 27.1.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 700 of 2013. As such, the facts of only lead case are dealt with.

5. The facts pleaded in the lead case, being W.P.(S) No. 4561 of 2016 are that these petitioners were working as Daily Wagers and they were engaged in between 1982-86. The Government of Bihar, Department of Forest and Environment, issued a notification with respect to trading of kendu leaves and the same was notified on 14.3.1987. With a view to achieve such object, the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project, Hazaribag issued instructions to Divisional Managers to appoint daily wagers, like the petitioners for working under the said project on the post of Forest Produce Overseer. In the light of such direction, the date of written test and interview were notified. The petitioners were directed to appear before the selection committee by order dated 3.5.1987. The petitioners faced selection process and subsequently declared successful on 10.5.1987 and the document to this effect has been brought on record as Annexure-4, wherein, the names of these petitioners finds place. This led to issuance of appointment letters on 14.5.1987 and 27.4.1988. The petitioners thereafter joined in between 8.6.1987 to 1.5.1988. The petitioners continued to work as such and in the meantime, the State of Bihar was bifurcated on 15.11.2000. Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited (JSFDC) came into existence on 23.3.2002 and the services of petitioners fell within the jurisdiction of JSFDC. The petitioners have contended that in a reply to the query under RTI Act, the details of sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Produce Overseer were supplied, which is at Annexure-7 & 7/1 of the writ petition. However, by order dated 22.03.2003, the Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited directed to terminate the service of petitioners along with others on the ground that these appointments were made for three months only and hence, the petitioners could not be retained in service. The petitioners challenged the said decision in W.P.(S) No. 6625 of 2006, which was dismissed on 6.11.2012 on the ground that similar matter preferred by one Prabhu Nath Dubey was dismissed. The letters patent appeal, being L.P.A. No. 481 of 2012 preferred thereagainst was also dismissed on 5.12.2012. The Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13772 of 2013 was also dismissed on 10.5.2013.

6. The petitioners have further pleaded that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 700 of 2013. This writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.1.2014 with observations that the petitioners should raise all the factual and legal issues available to them before the High Court. However, in the meantime on 5.1.2012, a Committee was constituted. This led to issuance of letter dated 13.5.2013, whereby it was stated that since the petitioners have worked for more than 25