Allowed

Atwa Gope Alias Eto Gope v. Collectariate

Jharkhand HC22 Feb 2022WPC/4709/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition for regularization of employment as an Electrical Inspector sought a direction to issue relief based on long service and examination. The court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file a representation and directing the authority to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation before Respondent No. 4 within one month; Authority to fix hearing date and pass reasoned order within two months if petitioner entitled.

Atwa Gope Alias Eto Gope Vs Collectariate — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4709 of 2013

¶3

Atwa Gope @ Eto Gope son of Sri Chetnath Gope, resident of village Taisera, P.O. Taisera, P.S. Gumla, District Gumla

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

¶7

The Special Officer, Gumla Muncipality, Gumla

¶8

Gumla Muncipality through its Chief Executive Officer having his office at Gumla, Muncipality Office, P.O.+ P.S. Gumla, DistrictGumla, Jharkhand … … Respondents ---

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate ---

¶11

Through Video Conferencing

¶12

¶13

4 /22.02.2022 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶14

of the petitioners.

¶15

2. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

¶16

3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-state.

¶17

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶18

“ For issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the concerned respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Electricians/Electrical Inspector or any other equivalent sanctioned and vacant post in the District of Gumla under Gumla Municipality in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner is continuously working as Electrical Inspector in Gumla Municipality since 1990;

¶19

For issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to consider and dispose of the representation made by the petitioner along with representation made by the concerned official/respondents for regular appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, notifications and enforceable government orders as may be applicable considering the admitted fact about the petitioner’s engagement as Electrical Inspector pursuant to written examination and interview taken by Gumla Municipality on 21.08.1989 and since thereafter, till now, the petitioner is continuously working and discharging his duties as an Electrical Inspector in Gumla Municipality.”

¶20

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the writ petition has submitted that the petitioner has been working since 1990 on the post Temporary Electrical Inspector under Gumla Municipality and was being paid salary through credit in his bank account. He also submits that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 31.07.1989 under the signature of the Executive officer, Gumla Municipality, to appear on 21.08.1989 for a written test and interview on the post of Electrical Inspector and was also informed that if selected, then the candidate has to join. The petitioner appeared in the written test and interview and was ultimately selected and thereafter he has been discharging his duties. The petitioner has given instances of the work executed by the petitioner under respondent No. 4.

¶22

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made application before the Special Officer, Gumla Municipality on 06.01.2005 to regularize his services, since the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties since 31.07.1989 as a daily wager and the petitioner’s application was duly forwarded by the Authority. He submits that thereafter repeated representation was made vide letter dated 13.11.2007 and 28.11.2008, but no action was taken.

¶23

7. The learned counsel submits that after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and Others) and the judgment passed in the case of Narendra (2018)3 JBCJ S.C. 291 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others versus State of Jharkhand and Others) the State has framed scheme for regularization but in spite of that the case of the petitioner has not been considered so far.

¶24

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the writ petition itself may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No. 4 and upon filing of such representation, his case will be considered as per the prevailing rules/norms regarding regularization of service.

¶25

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from today along with a copy of the writ petition and also any judgment/scheme

¶26

¶27

or circular which the petitioner may seek to rely. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 4 shall fix a date of hearing for the petitioner and upon hearing the petitioner pass a reasoned order within a period of two months thereafter. The order should be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided in the representation. If the petitioner is found entitled for any relief, the same should be forthwith given to the petitioner.

¶28

10. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶29

11. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the claim or otherwise of the petitioner and the concerned authority is required to pass order in accordance with law.

¶30

12. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.

¶31

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶32

Binit

Atwa Gope Alias Eto Gope v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atwa Gope Alias Eto Gope v. Collectariate

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

Dr Shyam Nandan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Range Forest Officers Association through Its General Secretary Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Somay Baskey Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhatu Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Mohan Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Sallauddin Saba And Ors. Vs Health