Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Tara Podo Soren, S/o. Late Rasik Soren & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 3754 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2024
[REGULARIZATION] - [Employment and Service Rights] - [Jharkhand Regularization Rules 2015, Jharkhand Regularization Rules 2019] - [The court discussed the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and its amendment in 2019, particularly Rule 3(ka)(ii), which stipulates that regularization is not permissible unless the employee is working against a sanctioned post. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the petitioners, despite their long service, were not entitled to regularization as they did not meet the criteria set forth in the rules. The court emphasized the need for the state to create sanctioned posts if it wishes to regularize such employees.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as 'Safai Moharir' in the Settlement Office, Dumka, sought regularization of their services after more than 20 years of employment. They claimed that their appointments followed due procedure and that they were entitled to regularization under the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and its amendment in 2019. However, their request was denied by the Deputy Collector on the grounds that the posts were not sanctioned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not covered by the existing regularization rules as they were not working against sanctioned posts. The court noted that while the petitioners had served for a long time, the rules explicitly required a sanctioned post for regularization, which was not the case here. The court upheld the impugned order rejecting their claim for regularization.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services under the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019 despite not working against sanctioned posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization under the Jharkhand Regularization Rules is contingent upon the existence of sanctioned posts. The long duration of service alone does not entitle employees to regularization if they do not meet the specific criteria outlined in the rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Deputy Collector to deny regularization to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
And
The petitioners further pray before this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, who have been working under the control of Settlement Office, Dumka, under Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, on the post of Safai Moharir, since more than 20 years, pursuant to the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, its notification no. 4871 dated 20.06.2019.
And
The petitioners further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions commanding upon the concerned respondent to fix the salary of the petitioners at least class-III employees, as they are working since more than 20 years, regularly without medical insurance and provident fund.
And
The petitioners further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions commanding upon the concerned respondent to pay the salary of the petitioners with a view to Minimum Wages Act, as the petitioners are not getting any insurance, medical benefit, provident fund and they are getting the salary on piece rated, by which they are unable to maintain their family and they have rendered their services, diligently, honestly and sincerely to the best satisfaction of the concerned respondent since last more than 20 years.
And/ Or
For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction (s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.”
Arguments of the petitioners.
3. As per the writ petition the petitioners are working on the post of ‘Moharir’ on contractual basis as daily wagers known as 'Safai Moharir' in the Settlement Office at Dumka.
4. It has been stated in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition that the petitioners were appointed after following due procedure after roster clearance and advertisement and have been working for a long time. The payment was made from time to time and remuneration was also enhanced at the level of the department. It is their further case that the matter regarding payment to 'Safai Moharir' was placed before the cabinet and a decision was taken that 'Safai Moharir' would be paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 250 per day and accordingly, a Resolution No. 65 dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure-1) was passed. Further details about each of the petitioners have been mentioned in paragraphs nos. 10 and 11 of the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Notification dated 13.02.2015 is the scheme of Regularization as formulated by the State of Jharkhand. Earlier a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 462 of 2015 was filed by some of the petitioners seeking a direction upon the respondents to make payment of wages @ Rs.250 per day in terms of the aforesaid decision of the cabinet contained in memo no. 65 dated 04.03.2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.11.2015 observing that the petitioners may have a claim as per Rule framed by the State Government for Regularization vide Notification dated 13.02.2015. The order in W.
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
The regularization of muster roll workers must comply with established policies and legal standards, and irregular appointments cannot be regularized without following due process as mandated by the ....
The right to regularization under the Rules of 2016 is based on continuous engagement prior to the cut-off date and possession of requisite qualifications, regardless of initial appointment validity.
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 court established that daily-wage employees engaged before the cut-off date are entitled to regularization under the Rules of 2016, regardless of initial appointment irregularities.
The court emphasized fair treatment and equal pay, mandating regularization of long-serving employees who were arbitrarily excluded from benefits, thereby reinforcing principles of equality under Art....
Regularization of daily-wage or casual employees is not an automatic right upon completing 240 days of service. It remains contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts and adherence to govern....
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
