Disposed

Gupteshwar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC8 Mar 2021WPC/1274/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for quashing of non-renewal of contract. Court directed respondent to decide petitioner's case within six weeks after considering two identical engineers who were granted contract renewal despite similar allegations.

What did the court decide?

Directed Deputy Secretary-respondent no.5 to consider petitioner's case alongside two similarly situated engineers and decide within six weeks.

Gupteshwar Prasad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.1274 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

Gupteshwar Prasad, aged about 48 years, S/o Sri Sahebu Bedia, R/o Village Ordana, P.O. Ordana, P.S. Petarwar, District Bokaro (Jharkhand), Pin Code 829121 .... .... …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶6

Principal Secretary, Rural Development, at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, at P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶8

Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, at P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶9

Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶10

Project Officer, MNREGA, Dhanbad, at P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶11

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Baghmara, at P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶12

Block Development Officer, Baghmara, at P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶13

Block Program Officer, Baghmara, at P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Sandeep Verma, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III

¶16

------

¶17

07/08.03.2021 Heard Mr. Yashvardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶18

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶19

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by Deputy Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand whereby the contract of the petitioner has not been renewed pursuant to the Baghmara P.S. Case No.53 of 2015.

¶20

The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, Baghmara Block, Rural Development Authority, Government of Jharkhand since July, 2016 and posted in Baghmara Block of Dhanbad District under MNREGA project. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis for working under MNREGA

¶21

¶22

scheme. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice by Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad in reference of an investigation in Daludih village in which it was found that in the Management Information System, the project was shown to be complete however, on the site inspection, the project concerned was not complete. In few projects, the payments were released and paid but the muster roll and measurement book was not available. Certain other allegations were also there and an F.I.R. was lodged in Baghmara police station which was registered as Baghmara P.S. Case No.53 of 2015. The petitioner submitted his reply to show cause on 23.12.2017.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no technical approval has ever been given by the petitioner. He submits that Baghmara P.S. case was lodged in which other persons were also charge sheeted. He draws the attention of the Court towards order dated 09.10.2020 passed in this case and submits that pursuant to that order, the respondent-State was directed to disclose that similarly situated persons have been given benefit or not. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein in para 8 names of persons have been disclosed stating therein that their contract have been renewed. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit in view of the Annexure-A which has been brought by way of filing supplementary counter affidavit whereby the Deputy Development Commissioner cum Programme Coordinator, Dhanbad has informed the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad submitted his report by letter dated 04.05.2019 wherein he has disclosed that involvement of the petitioner and other two Engineers has not been found in the said Baghmara P.S. Case No.53 of 2015. He submits that in view of this fact, the petitioner’s case is also on similar footing.

¶24

Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-State tried to distinguish on the ground that two similarly situated persons disclosed at para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit that those persons were not found to be involved in the said P.S. Case.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. There is no doubt that the terms and conditions of contractual employee is being governed in terms of the appointment letter. In the case in hand, two persons disclosed in para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit have been allowed to work by way

¶26

¶27

of renewing their contract. In the said supplementary counter affidavit at Annexure-A, it has been disclosed against the petitioner and other two Engineers. Nothing has been found in that P.S. case which is on the basis of the letter submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Dhanbad. The Scheme in question is already going on. The Court is very slow in passing any order if the appointment is made under any scheme, however, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police” reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 wherein it has been stated that if the scheme is going, the person who is working in the same scheme, if there is no allegation, the same person may be allowed to work. Paragraph 13 to 15 and 18 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶28

“13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of the PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said Scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the project or the scheme.

¶29

The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularisation. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts coterminous with the Scheme and not of permanent posts.

¶30

On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularisation in some other project or service. [See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Employees’ Union, U.P. Land Development Corpn. v. Amar Singh, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi(3), Indian Council of Medical Research v. K. Rajyalakshmi and Lal Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.] In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularisation.

¶31

We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that the process of termination and reappointment every year should be avoided and the appellants should be continued as long as the Scheme continues, but purely on ad hoc and temporary basis, coterminous with the Scheme. The Circular dated 17-3-1995 directing artificial breaks by annual terminations followed by fresh appointment, being contrary to the PIF Additional Scheme and contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence, is liable to be quashed.”

¶32

Here, identically two persons have been provided the benefit as

¶33

¶34

disclosed in para 8.

¶35

In view of these facts, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the Deputy Secretary-respondent no.5 to consider that two Engineers, identically situated, have been given benefit by the same Department. He will decide the case of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶36

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

¶38

Anit

Gupteshwar Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gupteshwar Prasad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Mustafa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

MD Hasim Khan Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director

Ajay Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ganauri Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Ajit Kumar Verma Vs Excise Department