JUDGMENT :

[S.N. Pathak, J.]

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions and as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. All these writ petitions have been filed at the instance of the petitioners, who were appointed in the service of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘Corporation’) on contractual basis and subsequently all of them were regularized in service with effect from 12.5.2012. They are claiming the benefit of regularization. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.5.2016 (Annexure-26) as also the Board Resolution dated 10.6.2016 (Annexure-27), whereby the petitioners’ claim for extending the benefit of regularisation has been rejected.

4. As per factual matrix, all the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts pursuant to advertisement floated by the respondent Corporation after following due procedure. Though the appointments were for limited period, but the same got extended from time to time as per Annexure-4 series and Annexure-6 series. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 24th meeting held on 11.8.2010 took a decision to enhance the period of their contract to next three years. In 29th meeting, it was decided to examine the cadre scheme and service conditions of the contractual employees. Thereafter, in 32nd meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 12.5.2012, it was decided to adopt and approve the recommendation of the committee dated 6.2.2012 regarding absorption of those working for three years or more years after joining pursuant to open advertisement or five or more otherwise. Pursuant thereto, office order dated 6.11.2012 was issued, whereby, services of contractual employees were regularised with effect from 12.5.2012, which includes the names of present petitioners also. Clause 3 thereof stipulates that the pay structure as fixed by the cadre scheme and service condition of the regularised employees as adopted by the Corporation shall be effective from 2.11.2012. Consequently, different office orders were issued separately to each of the petitioners on 8.1.2015 mentioning therein the service conditions, pay structure and the effective date of regularisation i.e. 2.11.2012. This office order also mentions the Board Resolution No. 32/01 and 29/10, as also the Board Resolution No. 37/36/07, which were, however, irrelevant in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. The resolution no. 37/36/07 was concerned with the daily rated employees, who were regularised much later to the present petitioners.

5. To be more specific, it would be relevant to mention here that the resolution no. 37/36/07 was related to daily rated employees in the Corporation. On the basis of a newspaper report dated 23.1.2015, the Under Secretary, Mines Department, issued a letter on 25.1.2015 informing the Managing Director of the Corporation that all the appointments made by the Corporation as published in newspaper is hereby stayed. Thereafter, by order dated 27.1.2015, the Department has ordered to constitute a committee to enquire into the matters relating to appointments/ regularisation in the Corporation. Consequently, the Corporation issued an office order dated 28.1.2015 to the effect that ‘all appointments made in January, 2015 shall be kept in abeyance’. Because of this letter, the petitioners are deprived from getting the benefits arising out of regularisation of their services.

6. Petitioners have earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3241 of 2015, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider their cases, which ultimately resulted in rejection of the petitioners’ claim by passing the reasoned order dated 16.6.2016. Hence, the petitioners again approached this Court for claiming the benefit of regularisation.

7. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel, for the pe