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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Sanjay Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 4381 of 2016
Decided on : 18-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Shubham Mayank, Mr. Manish Kumar, advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh

The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of replacing adhoc employees with another set of adhoc employees and the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees for regularization.

Headnote:

Regularization - Service Termination - [Regularization] - [Jharkhand Public Service Commission Act, 2006, Section 5(1)(a); Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules, 2006, Rule 7(1); Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 6] - The court discussed the petitioner's plea for regularization of service and the authority's termination of service. It highlighted the legal provisions under the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Act and Rules, and the Right to Information Act, emphasizing the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees and the prohibition of replacing adhoc employees with another set of adhoc employees.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the termination of his service and requested regularization of his service as a Lecturer (Electronics) in a government polytechnic. The petitioner had a history of legal battles for fair pay and regularization, and the respondents terminated his service just before the retirement of the Principal Incharge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination of the petitioner's service was arbitrary and unjustified, especially in light of the history of his service and legal battles. It emphasized the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees and the prohibition of replacing adhoc employees with another set of adhoc employees.

Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of the petitioner's service, the plea for regularization, and the legality of the authority's actions in light of the petitioner's long-standing service and legal battles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principle that adhoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of adhoc employees, and the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees for regularization. It also emphasized the importance of following the provisions of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission Act and Rules.

Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to file a representation for consideration of his case for continuation as an adhoc employee until regular appointments are made, highlighting the need for fair consideration and adherence to legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 150, dated 28.06.2014, issued under the signature of Principal Incharge, Government Polytechnic, Dumka by which his service has been cancelled and the office order issued vide Memo No. 413, dated 17.09.2013 has been made ineffective with immediate effect so far petitioner is concerned. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to regularise his service to the post of Lecturer (Electronics) since he has rendered his service under the respondents since 1995. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents restraining them to give effect to the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 150, dated 28.06.2014, till decision for permanent absorption/ regularization of his service is taken by the respondents.

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a temporary part time Lecturer in the year 1995 vide letter no. 327, dated 11.09.1995 on payment of consolidated amount of Rs. 1,300/- per month under the Govt. Polytechnic, Dumka and used to take 4 to 6 classes per day regularly similar to the duty of a full time Lecturer. After rendering more than five years of service, petitioner requested for grant of minimum pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed lecturers in view of the fact that petitioner was also rendering duty at par with the regular lecturers. When no heed was paid to request of the petitioner, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 1732 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2001 directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in minimum pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed lecturers. A direction was also given to the respondents to give age relaxation and preference in regularization. Thereafter, pursuant to memo no. 298, dated 01.03.2004, an order was passed for payment of salary to the petitioner with effect from 2001 itself. The appeals preferred by the State before the Hon’ble Division Bench as also before the Hon’ble Apex Court also stood dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 497 of 2005 and order dated 04.01.2007 passed in SLP No. 20969/2006 respectively.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that in spite of orders mentioned hereinabove, the respondents stopped paying minimum salary to the petitioner from November, 2006 leading to filing of W.P.(S) No. 2554 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2008 directing the respondents to pay salary in view of orders passed earlier. In the year 2010, the Department of Science and Technology issued a Resolution vide Memo No. 3397, dated 26.11.2010, whereby a decision was taken regarding payment of salary to the part time lecturer working in the Govt. Polytechnic and it was decided that the part time lecturer shall be paid honorarium at the rate of Rs.250/- per lecture and maximum of Rs.12,500/- per month. Petitioner again filed W.P.(S) No. 837 of 2011 praying therein to issue direction to the respondents to pay him salary/honorarium in terms of Resolution issued vide Memo No. 3397, dated 26.11.2010. The said writ petition is still pending and the State has taken the stand that one Menashi Marandi was transferred to the College where petitioner is working. Said Menashi Marandi is a Lecturer in the Department of Electronics but as there was no vacant post in the Department of Electronics, she had been adjusted against the post held by petitioner i.e. in the Faculty of Electrical. However, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, vide letter no. 758, dated 19.05.2011, has issued direction to pay salary/ honorarium to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.

5. It is further case of the petitioner that pursuant to advertisement published in Hindustan daily dated 11.06.2011, the respondents have invited applications for appointment of Adhoc/ Part Time Lecture

          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