Allowed

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Apr 2022WPC/2835/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that petitioners, daily wage employees working since 1977, are entitled to the benefits of a regularization order dated 08.01.2015. The respondent corporation was directed to provide all due benefits and dues arising from that order within eight weeks, even during any pending state enquiry, pursuant to Uma Devi principles.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation to give all due benefits to petitioners arising out of office order dated 08.01.2015 within eight weeks.

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs Jharkhand State Mineral… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

W.P.(S) No.2835 of 2014

¶5

----

¶6

1.Nirmal Singh, son of late Sundar Singh, resident of Village Salo POPolpol, PS Satbarwa, Dist. Palamu

¶7

2.Paras Nath Tiwary, son of late Ramkaran Tiwary, resident of Vill and PO Baratola, PS Daltonganj District Palamau

¶8

3.Om Prakash Singh, son of late Ambika Singh, resident of Vill Kamta Pipri Khurd PO Piprikala Bishunpura, PS Meral District Garhwa

¶9

4.Sanjay Kumar Pandey son of late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Vill Lohra, PO Garikhash P.S. Paton District Palamau

¶10

5.Dwarika Mahto, son of late Ramvilas Mahto Resident of Mahugai PO Kanda, PS Bishrampur, District Garhwa

¶11

6.Smt. Urmila Devi, w/o late Dubraj Singh, resident of Saltuwa PO Saltuwa PS Chenpur Dist. Palamau

¶12

7.Bishwanath Mahto son of late Kailash Mahto resident of Damaro PO Basna, PS Bishrampur, District Palamau

¶13

8.Smt. Dhanpati Devi, w/o late Parmeshwar Singh, resident of Kanda, PO Kanda PS Bishrampur, District Palamau

¶14

9.Birendra Ram, son of late Lukeshwar Mochi resident of Vill Kanda, PO Kanda PS Bishrampur, District Palamu

¶15

10.Lalumochi son of late Sukan Mochi resident of Village and PO Kutmu PS Pandu District Palamu

¶16

11.Yamuna Singh, son of late Sudhu Singh, resident of Mahugai Kanda, PO Kanda, PS Bishrampur, District Palamu

¶17

12.Amit Kumar Dubey, son of late Hirabansh Dubey resident of Village Chaniya PO Rajhara PS Bishrampur, District Palamau….. Petitioners

¶18

-- Versus --

¶19

1.Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation, a Govt. of Jharkhand Undertaking having its office at Mineral Corporation, building, Doranda, Ranchi

¶20

2.The Chairman, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., a Govt. of Jharkhand Unvertaking having its office at Mineral Corporation, Building, Doranda, Ranchi

¶21

3.The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., a Govt. of Jharkhand Unvertaking having its office at Mineral Corporation, Building, Doranda, Ranchi …... Respondents

¶22

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶24

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III

¶25

¶26

16 /12.04.2022 This petition has been filed for command upon the

¶27

respondents to give the benefits of the order dated 23.11.1991 and 30.09.1993 whereby a decision has been taken to regularize all the daily wages employees particularly since the petitioners are working from 19.07.1977 till now.

¶28

¶29

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ service regularized by order dated 08.01.2015 which is on record at Annexure-16 of the supplementary affidavit. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 31.08.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2015 and submits that the coordinate Bench has also directed to regularize the similarly situated persons and also directed to give all dues and the benefit to the petitioners of that case so that they may not be discriminated as per the criteria of ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi’ in terms of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He referred to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2035 of 1994 (R) wherein it has been held that the respondent Corporation was directed to give all the benefits of the petitioners arising out of its office order vide Memo No.161/1981 contained at Annexure-9 even during pendency of the enquiry by the State Government positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication/production of that order. He further submits that by the order dated 08.01.2015 similarly situated persons and the petitioners have been regularized. He further submits that the petitioners of W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2015 have already been provided benefits by the respondents and the petitioners in this petition have been left out whereas the case of the petitioners stand on similar footing.

¶30

Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned G.A.-III appearing on behalf of the respondent- Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation submits that the order is under challenge in L.P.A. No.746 of 2016. He further submits that the case of the petitioners has not been considered in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Uma Devi’. In reply, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that so far the stay matter in the L.P.A is concerned that has been rejected by the Division Bench of this Court by

¶31

¶32

order dated 07.11.2017 and this order is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.9017/2018 and dismissed the challenge made in the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he submits that in view of rejection of the stay matter in the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioners are entitled for the benefits as the similarly situated persons have been provided. He further submits that the persons who are junior to the petitioners have been provided the benefit whereas the petitioners have been left out.

¶33

Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel submits by way of referring the order dated 04.07.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No.844 of 2003 that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned he has been permitted in that case to withdraw the petition in view of ‘Uma Devi’ for filing appropriate petition before the concerned Department.

¶34

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it appears that the case of the petitioners are covered in the light of the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2015, the persons junior to the petitioners have been provided the benefit and considering the matter of stay which travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no impediment in disposing of this petition in the light of the directions issued in W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2015.

¶35

So far as the submission of Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned G.A. appearing for the respondent Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. with regard to petitioner no.2 is concerned, i.e., withdrawal of W.P.(S) No.844 of 2003 is concerned has got no bearing as thereafter the decision has been taken by the concerned Department by order dated 08.01.2015 wherein the name of the petitioner is also disclosed as the Department itself has taken decision to pay remuneration to the persons whose name has been disclosed in the said

¶36

¶37

order dated 08.01.2015.

¶38

Since the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. has also taken decision by order dated 08.01.2015 contained in Annexure-16, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. to give all due benefits to the petitioners arising out of office order dated 08.01.2015 contained in Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit even during pendency of the enquiry by the State Government, if any, positively within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication/production of this order.

¶39

W.P.(S) No.2835 of 2014 stand disposed of.

¶40

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶41

SI/,

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh and Ors. v. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation and Ors.

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

Mangra Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Pramila Kumari Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dev Kumar Dubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kishun Ray Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Jhimli Majumdar and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radha Mohan Mishra Alias R M Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.