Disposed

Deepak Lal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2019WPC/1551/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application for regularization of services and enhanced salary within ten weeks, citing Supreme Court precedents on regularization of employees working for extended periods without formal appointment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to take a conscious decision and pass a reasoned order on pending representation within ten weeks.

Deepak Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 1551 of 2018

Deepak Lal

Petitioner

V E R S U S –

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi

¶7

2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, dhurwa, Ranchi

¶8

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda

¶9

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Godda

¶10

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR S. N. PATHAK

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sameer Sahai, AC to AG

¶13

¶14

05/20.06.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as he has been working as a Computer Operator in the office of District Revenue Branch, Godda from more than 15 years.

¶16

Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case is that the petitioner having fulfilled all the eligibility criteria was appointed to the post of Computer Operator on 30.09.2003 vide Memo No. 690/ra dated 30.09.2003 in the office of District Revenue Branch, Godda and his salary was fixed @ Rs. 4500/- per month and since then he is continuously performing his duty under the control and supervision of the respondent-authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that from time to time, salary of the petitioner has been revised. The petitioner has completed his ten years regular service as a Computer Operator in the year, 2013 itself and the then Deputy Commissioner has given him the experience certificate and other Deputy Commissioners have also issued experience certificate to him. The petitioner was sent to work at the Facilitation Centre from the District Revenue Branch, Godda to District E-Governance Society, (DeGS) vide Memo No. 688/go, Godda dated 22.05.2015 and again deputed in the Public Grievance Cell vide Memo No. 961/go Godda dated 14.07.2015 by the respondents. But unfortunately, w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the services of the petitioner has been shown to be an outsourcing Computer Operator and his salary has been reduced to Rs. 12,600/without dismissing or terminating the services of the petitioner and no any

¶17

¶18

departmental proceedings are initiated against him, whereas, the other contractual Computer Operator has been receiving revised salary @ Rs.26,300/- per month as per the Memo No.12 dated 02.06.2017 issued by Government of Jharkhand, Planning-cum-Finance Department. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide letter No. 300/ra, Godda dated 02.03.2017 has sent a letter to the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa, stating the fact that the petitioner is working for more than 14 years in Revenue Department, Godda as a computer operator so his service be regularized, but no decision has been taken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has represented before the respondent NO.3 for his regularization of services and revised pay/salary. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

¶19

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitiled for consideration of his case for regularization as he has worked for more than 14 long years. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards a Notification of the State Government dated 04.03.2015 and submits that in view of the said Notification of the State, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered, but the respondents have illegally and arbitrary not considered the same till date. Learned counsel further argues that he is also entitled for enhanced salary @ Rs.26,300/- per month which is being given to other similarly situated Computer Operator and as such, a direction be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as well as payment of enhanced salary with arrears.

¶20

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent- State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has neither been appointed against the sanctioned post nor on contract basis and as such, the claim of the petitioner is not bona fide. The petitioner is working through out-sourcing agency namely, SBCL from July, 2017 and his payment is being made by the agency with certain terms and conditions. Learned counsel further submits that the Gazette Notification dated 04.03.2015 is only applicable for those, who have been appointed on sanctioned post. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner and even the appointment letter has not been annexed to show when the petitioner was appointed and what was the mode of appointment for claiming regularization of the services. In absence of any appointment letter, no right has accrued to the petitioner for regularization.

¶21

¶22

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and without going into the merits of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that since no decision has been taken by the respondents till date on the pending representation of the petitioner, I hereby direct the respondents to take a conscious decision and pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner, taking into consideration the celebrated Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 , within a period of ten weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner's case is turned down for one or other reasons, same will be communicated to the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶24

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶25

Punit/-

Deepak Lal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Lal v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Gupta Vs Home Department

Dr Radha Kant Kunwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Sumit B Binha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Kiran Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Rural Development Department

Rup Singh Tiriya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murlidhar Mishra Vs Human Resources Department