Appeal against the termination of services of comma operator staff engaged under a government scheme that had expired. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that termination on expiry of the scheme was valid.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 31 of 2016 With
I.A. No. 260 of 2016
1 .Vivek Kumar Dubey, son of Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey, resident of VillageBaralota, Post Office-GLA College, Daltonganj and Police StationDaltonganj, District -Palama. Presently, working as Computer Operator in Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA), Palamau under Project Director of Mukhya Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), Daltonganj
2 .Manjeet Kumar, son of Shri Sarju Choudhary, resident of c/o Jitendra Choudhary at Bank Colony, Gosaidih, Post Office-K.G. Ashram and Police Station-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. Presently working as Computer Operator in Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA), Dhanbad under Project Director of Mukhya Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), Dhanbad
3 .Shaildndra Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Brijnandan prasad Sinha resident of Village- Rupnagar, Post Office-Hunderganj and Police Station- Hunterganj, District-Chatra. Presently working as Computer Operator in Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA), Chatra under Project Director of Mukhya Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), Chatra …. Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Post Office and Police Station-Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3.The Development Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Nepal House Doranda, Post Office and Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi
4.The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Post Office and Police Station-Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5.The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Sugarcane, Nepal House Doranda, Post Office and Police Station-Doranda, District-Ranchi 6.The Director, Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, Post Office and Police Station-Kanke, District Ranchi
7.The Project Director, State Level Nodal Cell, Mukhya Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), Jharkhand, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke, Post Office and Police Station -Kanke and District-Ranchi …. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-----For the Appellants : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, JC to AAG -----
05/ 02nd August, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J.:
I.A. No. 260 of 2016
For the reasons mentioned in the application, and there being no serious objection from the other side, the delay in filing the accompanied
appeal stands condoned.
I.A. No. 260 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.
L.P.A. No. 31 of 2016
Other defects pointed out by the Registry are hereby ignored.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
impugned order.
In all, nine persons (writ petitioners) moved the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(C) No.2836 of 2014 for quashing of the letter No.1261 dated 25.04.2014 issued by Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby, the services of the petitioners were terminated after they were engaged in connection with Mukhya Mantri Kisan Khushali Yojna (MMKKY), Jharkhand which was approved on Cabinet decision for the Financial Year 2014-15. Since the said scheme had already terminated, the view taken by the Writ Court is that the writ petitioners could not continue in service. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Writ Court dated 01.12.2015, out of nine writ petitioners, only three have present the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the decision taken by the Cabinet has been over turned by the Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Jharkhand inasmuch as the Cabinet, has not recalled its decision.
We do not agree with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. What appears to the Court is that the aforesaid scheme was for the Financial Year 2014-15 only and never extended by the Cabinet. The appellants have not been able to place on record any document indicating that the said scheme has been further extended for the Financial Year 2015-16. That being the position in the case on hand, the
aforesaid letter dated 25.04.2014 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Jharkhand terminating the services of the petitioners, on termination of the scheme cannot be said to be bad on any count.
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, we hereby decline to show our indulgence in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which merits dismissal at this stage itself. Ordered accordingly .
(Virender Singh, C.J.)
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Sudhir/SI
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of services approved under a Cabinet decision for a specific financial year was valid when the scheme expired?
Whether the decision to terminate services of appellants who were engaged under a scheme that had terminated.
Whether there was any infirmity in the impugned order quashing the termination of services.
Vivek Kumar Dubey and others
The State of Jharkhand and others
Virender Singh
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
