Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Murli Chandra Kar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 266 of 2019
Decided on : 20-03-2024
[REGULARIZATION] - [EMPLOYMENT LAW] - [Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society, National Health Mission, Article 226, Uma Devi (3)] - [The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the regularization of contractual employees, particularly under the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society. It highlighted that employees appointed on a contractual basis do not have a legal right to regularization, especially when their appointments are not against sanctioned posts. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Uma Devi (3), which established that long service alone does not confer a right to regularization. The court concluded that the petitioners, having been appointed under a scheme and not directly by the state, were not entitled to regularization.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were contractual drivers under the Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Society, sought regularization of their services after working for over 10 years. Their claim was based on a previous court order directing the authorities to consider their status and a similar case where other contractual employees were regularized. However, their request was rejected by the authorities, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were appointed purely on a contractual basis and were not entitled to regularization as they did not meet the criteria established by previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Uma Devi (3). The court emphasized that mere long service does not grant a right to regularization, especially when the appointments were not against sanctioned posts.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, having served for over 10 years on a contractual basis, are entitled to regularization of their services? 2. Whether the principles established in previous judgments regarding regularization apply to the petitioners' case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that employees appointed on a contractual basis do not acquire a right to regularization simply due to long service. The principles laid out in Uma Devi (3) and subsequent cases establish that regularization is contingent upon being appointed against sanctioned posts and undergoing a proper recruitment process, which the petitioners did not fulfill.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioners were not entitled to regularization of their services under the current legal framework.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Ref. No. 9/RCH-631/2017-233(HSN) dated 06.12.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioners’ claim for regularization, pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5741 of 2017 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the vacant sanctioned posts on which they have been working as contractual drivers under the respondents in terms with letter No. 148 (RCH) dated 01.07.2005 issued under the signature of the respondent No.7.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of driver on contractual basis vide letter No. 148 (RCH) dated 01.07.2005 issued under the signature of the respondent No.7 on recommendation made by the Appointment Committee duly constituted in the light of the direction issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 19 dated 02.02.2005 and since then they have been continuously working under the concerned respondent authorities.
3. It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioners is also similar to the contractual employees working under the Government of Jharkhand, who have been regularized after continuously working against the sanctioned vacant posts for more than 10 years and thus the cases of the petitioners for regularization may also be considered on the ground of parity.
4. Though the petitioners are getting quite poor honorarium, however, they have been working on the contractual posts in anticipation that their services will be regularized in future. They are discharging their duties with dedication and to the satisfaction of the concerned respondent authorities. Hence, their grievance may be considered as per the government norms.
5. It is also submitted that the concerned respondent authorities having taken no action for redressal of the said grievance of the petitioners, they submitted a joint representation before the respondent No.7 on 11.09.2017 and thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5741 of 2017 seeking their regularization/absorption in service, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.08.2018 directing the respondent authorities to examine the petitioners’ status in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a speaking order assigning concrete and valid reason for consideration/non-consideration of their cases of regularization in services. Further, the entire exercise was directed to be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order dated 28.08.2018.
6. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a representation before the respondent No.2 on 29.10.2018 along with the order of this Court through Speed Post and requested to consider their grievances in terms with the said order passed by this Court. However, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 as contained in Ref. No. 9/RCH-631/2017-233 (HSN) rejecting their claim for regularization in services.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts much reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and submits that in view of the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized as they have been rendering their services as contractual drivers for more than 10 years.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected by referring the conditions of their contractual appointment wherein it was mentioned that no claim for permanent appointment would be entertained on the ground of discharging the duties on cont
Long service on a contractual basis does not confer a right to regularization or equal pay as per established legal principles.
The court ruled that contract employees with over ten years of service against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes and age relaxation ....
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
Irregular appointments made by competent authorities can be regularized if employees have served for over ten years, emphasizing the need for pragmatic interpretation of rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contract employees, who have worked for a significant period and possess the necessary qualifications, are entitled to seek regularization of ....
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
