Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Kumud Patar Munda, son of late Smabat Patar Munda and Ors - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 5599 of 2011
Decided On : 26-02-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 34 (1)(d) - Employees - Claiming Regularization to Post - Whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualification for post – Held, Court is of view that Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on date of promulgation of Regularisation Rules, ought to be given benefit of service rendered by them - If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc - Services of employees cannot be regularized if their appointments itself are illegal and dehors rules, that does not mean that employees who had rendered their services for long decades, even though appointed on daily wage basis or on contractual basis and subsequently, rendered their services on sanctioned and vacant post, cannot be considered for regularization in view of decision of Uma Devi’s case - As a cumulative effect of aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, Court hereby direct respondent- authorities to examine status of petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter, pass a speaking order assigning concrete and valid reason for consideration/non-consideration of case of petitioner for regularization of his services - Entire exercise by respondent-authorities must be completed within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are claiming regularization to the post of Peon, as they have been appointed sometimes in the year 1988, 1989 and 1990, in view of resolution dated 18.07.2009.
2. As per the factual matrix, petitioners were appointed as Peon on daily wages in the year 1988, 1989 and 1990 respectively. It is stated that petitioners were appointed on contract basis w.e.f. 27.12.2007 against the vacant post of Peon under the Department of Finance vide Memo No. 442 dated 15.02.2008. It is further stated that from time to time the salary of the petitioners were fixed by the respondent-authorities in view of different circular of the Finance Department. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are seeking regularization in view of the resolution dated 18.07.2009 which talks about regularization of services of such employees who have put in regular service for more than 10 years against the vacant and sanctioned posts. It is further stated that pursuant to aforesaid resolution of the Government, services of 20 similarly situated persons have been regularized by the respondent-authorities but in case of present petitioners, despite there being vacant posts of Peon, their right of being regularized has been denied by the respondent-authorities in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that in the similar matter one Sushil Lakra and others filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6410 of 2010 before this Court praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to regularize their services. This Court after hearing the parties disposed of the said case vide order dated 12.08.2011 directing the respondent-authorities to decide the grievance ventilated in that writ petition with regard to the regularization of their services in view of the resolution dated 18.07.2009. It is further case of the petitioners that pursuant to aforesaid order of this Court, present petitioners also preferred series of representations before the concerned authorities requesting therein to regularize their services in view of the resolution dated 18.07.2009 but the authority concerned did not take any action for regularization of services of the petitioners. Aggrieved with the non-consideration of their genuine grievances for regularization of their services in view of resolution dated 18.07.2009, the petitioners have come to this Court by filing this writ petition.
3. Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention to this Court towards Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit and submits that the petitioners were appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post and even their salary was enhanced from time to time.
The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to take decision regarding regularization of their services in view of the latest notification of the State Government regarding regularization.
Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the petitioners to prefer a fresh representation before the concerned authorities who in turn shall pass a reasoned order within stipulated time.
Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition has already been set at rest by the this Court in the case of W.P.(S). No. 1513 of 2016 and as such the petitioners also deserves the same benefit.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is dispute regarding their regular and continuous service for 10 or more years and from the records it appears that they have worked from 01.05.1990 to 31.01.1996, thereafter, again started working from 01.04.2011. It is further stated that the circular dated 18.07.2009 talks about the regular service for 10 or more years whereas, what appears from the records that the present petitioners have not put in 10 or more years of regular service against the vacant and sanctioned post and as s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
