Disposed

Shankar Kujur and Ors. v. Urban Development Department

Jharkhand HC8 Feb 2022WPC/901/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of writ petitions regarding regularization of municipal employees. Noting active State proceedings under specific rules, the Court directed respondents to complete regularization within four months and allowed petitioners to file representations.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to complete regularization process within four months; petitioners allowed to file representations for consideration.

Shankar Kujur and Ors. Vs Urban… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2887 of 2011

¶3

Ranchi Nagar Nigam Mazdoor Sangh through its General Secretary, Nihmiya Kerketta, S/o Late Masidas Kerketta, Resident of Dibdih, P.O. Argora, P.S. Argora, District – Ranchi

¶4

Raju Munda, S/o late Bandhan Munda, resident of Karamtoli, P.O. Lalpur, P.O. Lalpur, District – Ranchi, one of the member of the Executive Committee Ranchi Nagar Nigam Mazdoor Sangh and employee working as Regular Labour in Ranchi Municipal Corporation . … … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Urban Development Department

¶7

Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Ranchi

¶8

A 2 Z Infrastructure limited, having its registered office at 205, Laxman Place – 19, Veer Sarvarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110092. … … Respondents

¶9

With

¶10

W.P.(S). No.901 of 2015

¶11

Shankar Kujur, son of Sri Sahdeo Kujur, resident of Sukhdeo Nagar, Hesal P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District – Ranchi

¶12

Madi Tirkey, son of late Nanka Tirkey, resident of Hehal, Pawa Toli, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District – Ranchi

¶13

Lachhu Oraon, son of late Soma Oraon, resident of Kamde, P.S. Ratu, District – Ranchi

¶14

Gunja Oraon, son of Soma Oraon, resident of Kamde, P.S. – Ratu, District – Ranchi

¶15

Chotan Munda, son of late Biglaha Munda, resident of village – Kamde, P.S. Ratu, District – Ranchi

¶16

Chandradeo Oraon, son of late Bane Oraon, resident of village – Kamre, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi

¶17

Ganesh Oraon, son of Madi Oraon, resident of Devi Mandap Road, Hesal, P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District – Ranchi

¶18

Sanichrwa Oraon, son of late Sukul Oraon, resident of village – Tender, P.S. – Kanke, P.O. – Kamre, District – Ranchi

¶19

Bigal Oraon, son of late Sukul Oraon, resident of village – Tender, P.S. Kanke, P.O. Kamre, District – Ranchi

¶20

Kurchu Oraon, son of Mangra Oraon, resident of village Tilta, P.O. – Kamre, P.S. – Ratu, District – Ranchi

¶21

Somra Munda, son of late Bhadu Pahan, resident of village – Tender, P.O. – Kamre, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi.

¶22

Dharma Kachhap, son of Binod Kachhap, resident of village – Madhukam, P.O. – Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeonagar, District – Ranchi

¶23

Prabhu Oraon, son of Suresh Oraon, village – Sangrampur, P.O. – Boriya, P.S. – Kanke, District – Ranchi

¶24

. … … Petitioners

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶27

Ranchi Municipal Corporation through Chief Executive Officer, Kutchery Road, Ranchi - 834001 … … Respondents

¶28

¶29

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶30

¶31

¶32

For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N Roy, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate For the RMC : Mr. LCN Shahdeo, Advocate Mr. Rai Rajat Nath, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Advocate

¶33

¶34

Through Video Conferencing

¶35

¶36

28 /08.02.2022 Heard Mr. P.P.N Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Ashok Nath Roy, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. LCN Shahdeo and Mr. Rai Rajat Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Manish Mishra as well as Ms. Shivani Kapoor, is present.

¶37

4. W.P.S. No.2887 of 2011 has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶38

“ For a direction upon the respondents to protect the rights and interest of the members of the petitioners’ Association as the respondents after entering into an agreement with A 2 Z Infrastructure limited Company for implementing a scientific solid waste management system are bent upon to terminate/remove the members of the association of the petitioner no.1 as in terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the Ranchi Municipal Corporation along with A 2 Z Co., there is no terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement to protect right and interest of the members of the petitioners’ association.

¶39

Further direction may be issued to the Respondents particularly respondent no.1 & 2 not to implement the agreement entered into between the Ranchi Municipal Corporation with A 2 Z Company until the right and interest of the members of the Association of petitioner no.1 is protected.

¶40

Further direction may be issued to the respondents that if the services of the members of the Association of petitioner no.1 is taken by A 2 Z company then the entire facilities such as salary etc. which are being paid by the Municipal Corporation to the members of the petitioner no.1’s association be protected and they may not be deprived of their right and facilities/salaries which are being paid to them by the Municipal Corporation.

¶41

Further direction may be issued to the respondents that casual daily wages employee of the members of the petitioner no.1’s association who were working under the Ranchi Municipal Corporation since more than 10 to 30 years and such type of employees are about 713 in numbers and their services may also be protected and direction may be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of daily wages employees working under the respondents corporation since 10-30 years.”

¶42

¶43

5. W.P.(S). No.901 of 2015 has been filed for the following

¶44

relief:

¶45

For a direction commanding upon the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners/regularize the services of the petitioners and treat them as permanent employee of the respondent no.2 as the petitioners are working with the respondent no.2 in permanent/sanctioned post since the year 1997 i.e for more than 1516 years and pay the admissible salary to the petitioners at par to the employee who are engaged in the said post with admissible benefits.

¶46

For direction upon the respondents to not to issue any advertisement for appointment of candidates for the class III and IV post as petitioners have heard that the respondents are going to advertise for appointment of the candidates for the post of driver and labourer in permanent service ignoring the petitioners who are working since 1997 in daily wages against sanctioned post.

¶47

In alternate, if any vacancies were advertised and published then the petitioners will be given priority and extra weightage and extra points.”

¶48

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Ms. Shivani Kapoor in W.P.(S). No.2887 of 2011 has submitted that a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in the instant case on 20.01.2022 by the Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department mentioning therein that a scheme was framed for the purposes of regularization vide Notification No.3342 dated 10.09.2015 called “Jharkhand State Irregular Appointment and Working Employees Service Regulation Rule 2015” and subsequently, pursuant to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P (Civil) No.19832 -1938) in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwary and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., that aforesaid Rules of 2015 were amended vide Notification no.4871 dated 20.06.2019, namely “Jharkhand State Irregular Appointment and Working Employees Service Regulation Rule 2018” . She submits that in the light of the Notification no.4871 dated 20.06.2019, Jharkhand Urban Development and Housing Department had sought recommendation from the Director Municipal Administration, Jharkhand vide Letter No.3006 dated 22.07.2019, letter no.2145 dated 06.10.2020 and letter no.2833 dated 10.11.2020. The office of Director Municipal Administration, Jharkhand has communicated the department vide letter no.104 dated 10.01.2022 that the meeting of the committee regarding regularization was held for division wise urban local bodies, but the urban local bodies have not

¶49

¶50

produced certain required documents as per the eligibility of the personnel before the committee and again action is being taken to convene a meeting of the committee for decision on regularization.

¶51

7. The learned counsel submits that the matter regarding regularization is under active consideration of the Director Municipal Administration, Ranchi and the process is likely to be completed within a period of 3 months from today. She submits that the writ petition being W.PS. No.2887 of 2011 has been filed through an Association and the Association as well as its members may approach the Director Municipal Administration, Ranchi by filing a representation and their case for regularization will also be considered depending upon the meeting of eligibility criteria and will be decided on case to case basis with regard to each and every person, who approaches the Director Municipal Administration, Ranchi.

¶52

8. Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioners has no serious objection and he submits that the Union, who is the petitioner no.1 is now a registered Union and they are entitled to represent the employees, but it is not in dispute that the case of each and every employee is required to be considered on individual basis in the light of the amended Rules.

¶53

9. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that vide order dated 03.08.2017, a submission was made by the learned A.A.G that if further time is granted to the State, the State will come up with a specific policy decision regarding regularization keeping in view the earlier notification of the State Government dated 13.02.2015 and also the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and M.L. Keshri reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. Pursuant to such order, an affidavit dated 14.11.2017 was filed before this Court by Under Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha wherein, it was specifically stated that the Regularization Rules, 2015 had its life only for a period of one year which came to an end on 03.03.2016 and information was sought for from all the departments/districts as to how many such irregular appointed personnel fulfilling all the criteria for regularization under Regularization Rule 2015 are there under their Establishment whose

¶54

¶55

services are yet to be regularized. It was also stated that after required information is obtained, the matter would be reviewed by the State Government to examine the requirement of framing fresh guidelines so as to extend the validity of the Regularization Rule, 2015.

¶56

10. As a sequel to the aforesaid affidavit dated 14.11.2017 filed pursuant to order dated 03.08.2017, the aforesaid affidavit dated 20.01.2022 has been filed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department whereby the Rules of 2015 has been amended vide Annexure - C to the said affidavit and the contents of the affidavit has been already stated above by the learned counsel for the Respondents. It appears that the matter regarding regularization of the employees working under Ranchi Municipal Corporation is under active consideration and as per the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the entire process in connection with regularization is likely to take three months.

¶57

11. Considering the aforesaid specific stand taken in the counteraffidavit dated 20.01.2022 and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the entire process is likely to take three months, this Court hereby disposes of the present writ petitions by directing the respondents to complete the entire process as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of four months from today. The petitioner Ranchi Nagar Nigam Mazdoor Sangh as well as its members and also the petitioners of W.P.(S). No.901 of 2015 are at liberty to file a representation before the Director Municipal Administration, Ranchi giving the necessary details of their claim for regularization and their claim for regularization is directed to be considered by the Director Municipal Administration, Ranchi in accordance with law.

¶58

12. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶59

13. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.

¶60

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶61

Saurav

Shankar Kujur and Ors. v. Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Kujur and Ors. v. Urban Development Department

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

Satyendra Prasad Vs Union of India through Its General Manager

Ratan Chandra Rakshit Vs Union of India And Ors.

Laxminarayan Pingua Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jay Prakash Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranchi Nagar Nigam Mazdoor San Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pankaj Prakash Vs Union of India And Ors.