JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to confirm Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) to the petitioners from the date of joining who have been working in different posts in the Forest Department in the District of Singhbhum West. Further prayer has been made for quashing of letter dated 656 dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure-10) as well as letter No. 639 dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-11), by which it has been said that the date of joining prior to issuance of appointment letter is not proper and as such the date of appointment letter will be treated as date of joining.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are altogether 13 writ petitioners and the case of all the writ petitioners stand on similar footing.

5. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-1 series which relate to appointment letter of one Ram Dhyan Mishra, Petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel has submitted that the letter dated 26.05.1980 was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to join by 20.06.1980 with clear stipulation that if he does not join by 20.06.1980 offer of appointment will stand cancelled. It was also mentioned in the said letter that after joining, letter of appointment will be issued. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 1 accordingly joined on 17.06.1980 and thereafter vide memo No. 1078 dated 30.06.1980, formal letter of appointment was issued and in the letter of appointment also, the date of joining of the petitioner No. 1 was clearly mentioned as 17.06.1980. Learned counsel submits that similar is the situation with all the present writ petitioners whose details has been mentioned in para-6 of the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel submits that one similarly situated person namely David Angaria was granted the benefit of A.C.P. by treating his date of joining as the date of appointment and this fact has been mentioned in para-12 of the writ petition. He submits that the fact about grant of aforesaid benefit to David Angaria is not in dispute and the petitioners are praying for similar reliefs.

7. Learned counsel has referred to the impugned orders contained at Annexures-10 and 11 wherein a decision has been taken that the date of appointment letter is to be treated as the date of joining irrespective of the fact that incumbent may have joined the service prior to formal issuance of appointment letter. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-9 of the present writ petition to submit that such practice has been continuing in the department for the last 30 years and it has been mentioned in the said communication by the Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa to the Secretary of the Forest and Environment Department, State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel submits that as the mode and method of appointment and joining has been done as per the various letters issued by the respondent themselves and the respondents have asked each of the petitioners to join within the stipulated time frame with a clear stipulation that letter of appointment will be issued after they join, the petitioners cannot be put at a loss by treating the issuance of date of appointment letter as the date of joining, although they have actually joined a couple of days prior to date of issuance of appointment letters to the respective petitioners as per the instructions of the Respondents and mentioned in the offer letters for appointment. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition is fit to be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the date of joining of service by the petitioners be directed to be treat