Dismissed

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Feb 2021WPC/5379/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution and because the petitioners did not qualify under the regularization scheme for pre-1985 employees. The court also noted the petitioners had left the registered address without leaving a known native address.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed for non-prosecution and because petitioners were ineligible for regularization under the State scheme.

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.5379 of 2008

¶4

¶5

Krishnadeo Thakur

¶6

Umesh Singh … … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

Secretary, Deptt. of Science & Technology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶10

Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶11

Bihar Institute of Technology (BIT), Sindri through its Director, Sindri, Dhanbad. … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner :None For the Res.State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.IV

¶16

¶17

12/18.02.2021

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the respondent-State

¶19

through V.C.

¶20

2. Pursuant to the order dated 09.11.2020 notice was issued to the petitioners to engage any other counsel to represent their case.

¶21

Service report has been received with endorsement of the process server that the petitioner no.1 had left the address around 06 years ago for his native village and petitioner no.2 had also left the address around 03 years ago for his native village but the address of their native village is not known to the witnesses.

¶22

3. Forced with situation, this Court is proceeding to decide the matter on the basis of argument of the learned

¶23

¶24

counsel for the State and the averments made in the respective affidavits.

¶25

4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State referrs to paragraphs Nos. 12 and 15 of the counter affidavit and submits that no relief can be granted to these petitioners. Paragraphs 12 and 15 are quoted herein below:-

¶26

12. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-11 of the writ application under reply, it is most humbly stated and submitted that vide Annexure-3 to the writ application a direction was issued to submit a list of daily wages employees who had been working prior to 01.08.1985 and had already put in 240 days of service before 01.08.85. It is the admitted case of petitioner that he is working on daily wages basis from 01.06.89, hence he did not come within the scheme formulated by the State Government vide resolution no.5940 dated 18.6.93 for regularization of those employees who had been appointed prior to 01.08.85 in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

15. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 14 to 17 of the writ application under reply, it is most humbly stated and submitted that though application have been invited for appointment in B.I.T. Sindri, however, the

¶28

¶29

appointments could not be made as pursuance of direction of Hon’ble Court passed in cont. case (civil) No.291 of 2009 & cont. case (civil) No.418 of 2008 the Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology vide his order bearing memo no.1859 dated 30.06.2010 passed in reasoned order deciding to make appointment in B.I.T. sindri from the district panel. Since the vacancies in B.I.T. Sindri was being filled up from the district panel the application for appointment issued under the signature of Director, B.I.T. Sindri has to be stopped abintio.

¶30

5. Having heard learned counsel for the

¶31

respondent-State and looking to the specific averments made in para-12 & 15 of the counter affidavit; no relief can be granted to these petitioners.

¶32

6. Consequently, the instant writ application is hereby dismissed for non prosecution as well as for the reasons stated hereinabove.

¶33

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶34

Fahim /-

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnadeo Thakur And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandauri Ram Agrwal Vs Central Coalfield Limited And or

Kuldip Mishra Vs Education

Ram Bishun Singh Vs Forest

Siyaram Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Poulus Horo And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amarnath Madhu Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.