Manoj Kumar Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Drinking Water and Sanitation Deptt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 4946 of 2021

Manoj Kumar Dey, son of Sri Madhusudan Dey, Resident of Pani Tanki-I Campus, Hirapur, Post Office, Police Station and District Dhanbad

¶3

----Petitioner (s) Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, 2^nd Floor, Nepal House, Doranda, Post Office and Police Station, Doranda, District Ranchi-834002

¶5

Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, 2^nd Floor, Nepal House, Doranda, Post Office and Police Station, Doranda, District Ranchi-834002

¶6

Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, 2^nd Floor, Nepal House, Doranda, Post Office and Police Station, Doranda, District Ranchi-834002

¶7

Chief Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Post Office, Police Station and District Dumka

¶8

Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad Circle, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Near Muskan Hotel, Post Office, GPO Dhanbad, Police Station Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 826001

¶9

Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division No. 1, Kutchery Road, Near Randhir Verma Chowk, Luby Circular Road, Post Office GPO Dhanbad, Police Station Dhanbad District Dhanbad 826001

¶10

Assistant Engineer-cum-SDO, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division No. 1, Pani Tanki, Hirapur, Telli Para More, In front of DGMS Office, Post Office: GPO Dhanbad, Police Station and District Dhanbad 826001

¶11

Junior Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division No. 1, Pani Tanki, Hirapur, Telli Para More, In front of DGMS Office, Post Office: GPO Dhanbad, Police Station and District Dhanbad 826001

¶12

----Respondent (s)

¶13

--CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath

¶14

--For the Petitioner (s): Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Faisal Allam, A.C to S.C(Mines)-III

¶15

¶16

05/ 02.09.2024 Petitioner has filed this writ application seeking direction upon the Respondents to permanently absorb the petitioner in the existing permanent sanctioned substantive vacant post of Jeep Driver in Drinking Water and Sanitation Divisision-1 at Dhanbad in the regular establishment as he is working against the vacant sanctioned post of Jeep Driver on daily wages without any break in service for more than 30 years.

¶17

Case of the petitioner is that he was working as Daily Wage Driver in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Division-1 at Dhanbad since 06.07.1994. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure-2 to this writ petition which is the list of drivers working on Daily Wages. From perusal of it, it appears that

¶18

¶19

altogether four posts of driver were sanctioned in the aforesaid department and two posts were vacant as Umesh Singh and Jageshwar Manjhi are working on two posts. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner was kept as Daily Wage Driver as the Department needed his service. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he is working as Daily Wages Driver since 06.07.1994. The Respondent No. 6 – Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Dhanbad Division No. 1, Dhanbad had also recommended to the Deputy Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for regularization of his service as he was working for about 17 years and six months. However, the State has not taken any decision to regularize his service.

¶20

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others versus State of Jharkhand and Others reported in [ (2018) 8 SCC 238], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para-10, which reads as under:

¶21

“Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.”

¶22

Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court passed in W.P (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and analogous cases dated 22.12.2022 in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others versus State of Jharkhand and others, wherein the learned single Judge has held at para-31, which reads as under:

¶23

“31. The Hon’ble Apex Court was very much aware that these petitioners working continuously for more than ten years, claiming regularisation on the ground that their initial appointments were never challenged rather they continued to work for several years and many of them are at the verge of retirement and in some of the case they have crossed their age of retirement, which clearly speaks that they were allowed to continue on the said posts because the State was in need of their services. Once the State is in need of services and employees are allowed to continue on the said posts, plea is not with the respondents to come with a finding that their appointments were illegal. Time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court has said that if the appointments are irregular, they can be considered for regularisation. These appointments were never illegal rather by flux of time they ought to have been regularised as their appointments were irregular and not illegal. The respondents ought to have considered the observation of the Hon’ble Apex

¶24

¶25

Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, wherein it has been held thus:-

¶26

“8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11- 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.

¶27

The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.

¶28

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.”

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State submitted that the petitioner was working as Daily Wager and no appointment letter was issued to him. As such, his service cannot be regularized. He further submitted that two vacant posts against which the petitioner was working, was never advertised.

¶30

However, Respondents have admitted that the service of the petitioner is required and they are utilizing his service on need basis. 5 In view of the facts of this case and judicial pronouncements, it is evident that the petitioner is working for the last 30 years against the sanctioned vacant post. As per the regularization rules, if a person is working and has completed 10 years of service on contractual basis or Daily Wages against the vacant sanctioned post, then the person has to be given the benefit of service rendered by him by regularizing his service, unless there is valid objection to his regularization like misconduct, etc.

¶31

¶32

In view of the aforesaid facts, the Respondent State is directed to take a positive decision for regularizing the service of the petitioner as Jeep Driver in Drinking Water and Sanitation Division-1, Dhanbad within four weeks from the date of production / receipt of the copy of this order.

¶33

With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶34

(Ambuj Nath, J)

¶35

Ranjeet/ Uploaded

Manoj Kumar Dey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Drinking Water and Sanitation Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Dey v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Drinking Water and Sanitation Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guddu Rajwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ibrar Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishwanath Yadav Alias Sadhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhu Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Primary Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi

Kamal Herenz Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ld through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Vishnu Deo Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Deptt of Water Resources