Dismissed

Ajay Kumar v. Tourism

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2024WPC/4898/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim order where Justice Ambuj Nath examined a petition challenging a reduction in remuneration and seeking regularization of service. The court noted that petitioners are being paid minimum wages per the state scheme and there are no vacant posts for regularization.

What did the court decide?

Relief for enhancement of remuneration and regularization of service was denied; the writ application was dismissed.

Ajay Kumar Vs Tourism — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4898 of 2012

¶2

------

¶3

Ajay Kumar, son of Sri Albela Prasad, resident of Atma Singh Road, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶4

Imteyaz Ahmad, son of Md. Ashique Ali, resident of Hathikhana, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda, District- Ranchi.

¶5

Pappu Kumar, son of Dinanath Ram, resident of Village - Bara, P.O. Bela Tarhari, P.S. Noubatpur, District Patna (Bihar).

¶6

Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Bhuneshwar Singh, resident of village Mahrouli, P.O. Panchok, P.S. Bishunpur, District Darbhanga, (Bihar).

¶7

Rakesh Roy, son of Late Chhotan Kumar, resident of village Rajmahal, Tala Naya Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahebganj.

¶8

Yashvant Singh @ Yashvant Kumar Singh, son of Late Kameshwar Singh, resident of Village Salgi (Tundag), P.O. Jabra, P.S. Simariya, District Chatra.

¶9

Md. Mustakim Ansari, son of Makbul Miya, resident of Betla, P.O. Betla, P.S. Barwadih, District Latehar.

¶10

Ramji Mahto, son of Sri Ram Bilas Mahto, resident of Village & P.O. Hamadganj, District Palamu.

¶11

Krishna Paswan, son of Late Mahesh Paswan, resident of village Aghoribagh, P.O. Pipra, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamu.

¶12

10.Ravi Kumar, son of Late Mahesh Ram, resident of Murli Hill, Baragi, P.O. - R.S. Gaya P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya (Bihar).

¶13

11.Siddhnath, son of Late Mahadeo Sharan Singh, resident of village Sakrodha, P.O. Saistabad, P.S. Ghoshi, District Jehanabad (Bihar).

¶14

12.Nirmal Ekka, son of Late Cornelius Ekka, resident of VillageSemar Bera, P.O. Tundegi, P.S. & District Simdega.

¶15

13.Arvind Kumar, son of Sri Albela Prasad, resident of Atma Singh Road, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶16

14.Kapil Pandit @ Kapildeo Pandit, son of Bhattu Pandit, resident of village & P.O. Raghunarhpur, P.S. Nagarnorth, District Nalanda (Bihar).

¶17

… … Petitioners

¶18

-Versus -

¶19

The Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, F. F. P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶20

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, F. F. P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶21

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation, Hotel Birsa Vihar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶22

... … Respondents

¶23

¶24

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶25

-----For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate : Mr. K. Hari, Advocate

09/12.09.2024

Heard the parties.

The petitioners have filed this writ application for issuing necessary direction upon the respondents to not reduce their remunerations from Rs. 9,000/- per month which they have received till August, 2010, to Rs. 4,500/- per month. The petitioners have further prayed for directing the respondents to regularize their service on the respective posts as mentioned in paragraph 4 to this writ application.

¶30

Vide Order dated 09.09.2024, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents was directed to file supplementary counter affidavit bringing the fact on record whether the petitioners were paid minimum wages as per the scheme of the State Government.

¶31

The supplementary counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that the petitioners are being paid minimum wages as per the scheme of the State Government.

¶32

In light of the specific stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners are paid minimum wages, no case for grant of relief as prayed for enhancement is made out.

¶33

As far as prayer for regularization of the petitioners on the different posts is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in light of the decision passed by Division Bench of this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 252 of 2011 dated 10.10.2012, the respondent no. 1 the Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi had carried out the process for regularization of some of the persons working with them on Class IV vacant sanctioned post. Recruitment process was initiated in which the petitioners had also participated and three persons who were working on casual basis on Class IV post were regularized.

¶34

It was submitted that there is no vacant sanctioned post available

¶35

-2-

¶36

and as such the service of the petitioners cannot be regularized.

¶37

In light of the specific stand taken by the respondent no. 1 the Jharkhand State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi no case for regularization of the petitioners on the post they are working is made out.

¶38

Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶39

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶40

(AmbujNath, J.)

¶41

Rahul/-

¶42

-3-

Ajay Kumar v. Tourism

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. Tourism

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

Prakash Routh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Panchami Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bala Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhusudan Soren And Anr. Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Labour Employment And Training Deptt And Ors.

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology

Prem Mohan Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand