SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. Pathak, J.
Lily Kujur and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S). No. 3710 of 2018
Decided On : 02-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shadab Bin Haque
For the Respondent: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Akash Deep

Headnote:

Indian Nursing Council Rule, 1947 - Provident Fund & Gratuity - Petitioners have approached Court with a prayer for direction upon respondents to regularize services of petitioners on their respective posts in RIMS, along with all consequential benefits - Petitioners have further prayed for direction upon respondents to deduct & deposit amount towards Provident Fund & Gratuity contribution for petitioners, since date of their appointment - Whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services – Held, stand of respondents that since regularization of petitioners has been done under a special circumstance by giving relaxation in age by Governing Body of RIMS, they cannot be treated at par with other appointees who were appointed within the age limit prescribed under relevant rules for such an appointment, is not acceptable to Court on ground that petitioners were appointed in pursuant to advertisement and following procedure of law - Similarly situated persons, whose appointments were considered cannot be treated to be different from present petitioners -Treating them different will amount to discrimination and considering them to be a distinct class, the classification done by respondents cannot be said to be Constitutional since every appointment was in pursuant to advertisement floated by the RIMS and in accordance with the prevailing rules, on sanctioned and vacant post - same has to be followed in its true letter and spirit and as per rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and observations made in the aforesaid cases - As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, Court is of the considered view that present petitioners are also entitled for regularization - As such, the office order is modified to the extent that the services of the petitioner be treated to be regularized - Respondents are further directed to deduct and deposit amount towards PF Scheme and Gratuity Contribution of the petitioners since the date of their initial appointment - Respondent is directed to act accordingly as per rules and guidelines - Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 21.10.2014 on their respective posts in RIMS, Ranchi along with all consequential benefits. Petitioners have further prayed for direction upon the respondents to deduct & deposit amount towards Provident Fund & Gratuity contribution for petitioners, since the date of their appointment on 08.09.2003.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. In the year 2002, applications were invited for appointment of Staff Nurse (Grade ‘A’) on contractual basis at a consolidated remuneration of Rs.7200/- per month in RIMS, Ranchi under the provisions of Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 and Indian Nursing Council Rule, 1947. The petitioners having the requisite qualifications, applied for the same and on being found suitable, they were issued appointment letters on 08.09.2003 in pursuant to which, they gave their joining. Since their appointments, all the petitioners have worked with full honesty and devotion and never any complaint have been made against their working efficiency and discharge of duties. In the year 2014, applications were invited from interested candidates vide memo dated 06.09.2014, published in Local Newspaper for filling-up 190 posts of Staff Nurse (Grade-A) on regular basis in Pay-Band-II – Rs.3900-34800, G.P. Rs.4200 at RIMS, Ranchi. Thereafter, again vide Notification No.201(II)A, dt. 11.10.2014 applications were invited for appointment of 367 posts of Grade ‘A’ Nurse in pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800/- having G.P. Rs.4600 in P.B.-II at RIMS, Ranchi, who have qualified from Govt./ Private/ Non- Govt. Institute recognized by Nursing Council & State Govt. and registered under Jharkhand Nurses Registration Council. The petitioners having the requisite qualifications, submitted application forms in the requisite format and on being called, appeared in interview but erroneously and illegally, they were not considered for appointment. Thereafter, petitioners preferred several representations before the respondent-authorities for regularization of their services, in light of notification dated 11.10.2014 but all went into vain.

4. Left with no alternative, petitioners moved before this Court by filing writ application being W.P.(S). No. 3593 of 2015 for redressal of their grievances and this Court by its order dated 06.09.2017 disposed of the said writ application directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in accordance with the service conditions and in accordance with the scheme of regularization. In light of the order dated 06.09.2017, these petitioners submitted representations before the Director, RIMS Ranchi on 15.09.2017 and 09.11.2017 for regularization of their services w.e.f. 21.10.2014. Thereafter, by office order dated 04.04.2018, issued by the Director, RIMS, Ranchi, petitioners’ services were regularized w.e.f. 08.02.2018 and not from 21.10.2014 the date on which the services of similarly qualified and even less qualified persons have been regularized to the post of Grade ‘A’ Nurse.

5. Aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases for regularization w.e.f. 21.10.2014, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court.

6. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously argues that the petitioners have continuously worked on sanctioned and vacant post since 2003 without any break and discharged their duties honestly and have completed more than 10 years of service on 08.09.2013 but surprisingly, their services have been regularized after 4½ years and not even from 21.10.2014 when cases of similarly situated persons were considered and provided regular appointment. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Or

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top