Dismissed

Laldev Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand through the Labour Commissioner Labour Employment and Training Department

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2024LPA/632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal concerning regularization of employment was first dealt with to condone a 31-day delay under the Limitation Act. On merits, the appeal was dismissed as the initial appointment was found in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal (No. 632 of 2023) is dismissed; the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Laldev Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 632 of 2023

¶2

Laldev Prasad, aged about 53 years, son of Late Kesho Prasad, resident of Birsa Nagar, Zone No.4, Holding No. 55, P.O. and P.S. Birsa Nagar, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum … Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through the Labour Commissioner, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶5

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶6

The Deputy Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶7

The Joint Labour Commissioner, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Additional Labour Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Sitaramdera, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Pin 831009.

¶9

The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Sitaramdera, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Pin 831009.

¶10

The Labour Superintendent, Agriculture Labour Office, Ghatshila, Head Quarter Jamshedpur having its office at, Sitaramdera, P.O. Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Pin 831009

¶11

Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V

¶15

¶16

Order No. 04 / Dated: 16^th January 2024

¶17

I.A. No. 11530 of 2023

¶18

This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the

¶19

¶20

present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶21

In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 31 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

¶22

I.A. No. 11530 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

L.P.A. No. 632 of 2023

¶24

The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27^th July 2023 by which his prayer for regularization was not accepted by the writ Court.

¶25

However, the writ Court has issued a direction for payment of salary to the appellant for the period he had worked but not paid.

¶26

Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that after taking services from the appellant for over a decade the employer cannot take a stand that the post was not sanctioned.

¶27

However, we find that the appellant was engaged by the Labour Superintendent at Ghatshila and no advertisement for appointment to the post of Driver was issued. It appears from a glance at the letter dated 14^th June 2012 that the Labour Superintendent was provided a government vehicle and he on his own had engaged the appellant as driver. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand pleaded that the appellant was paid through contingent vouchers. In our opinion, the initial appointment of the appellant being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the writ Court rightly declined to entertain the prayer for regularization.

¶28

Having found so, we are not inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A No.632 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶29

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

R.K.

Laldev Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand through the Labour Commissioner Labour Employment and Training Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laldev Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand through the Labour Commissioner Labour Employment and Training Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalan Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary Road Construction Deptt Vs Ram Chandra Diwakar

Santosh Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deep Sunder Kumar Alias Dip Sunder Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabha Energy Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Palkhiwala Vishal Gautambhai Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax