Judagi Choudhari Vs the State of Jharkhand

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as Peon on adhoc basis on 16.05.1994 and thereafter, continued in the service. Though several representations were filed by the petitioner for confirmation of his service but yet the same has not been confirmed. It appears that petitioner’s service book and GPF were opened and also regular pay-fixation is being done. The cause of action arose to the petitioner when similarly situated persons who were also appointed on adhoc basis made their representations and after interference of this Court their services were confirmed. Petitioner having similar claim has prayed before this Court for similar treatment what has been given to the similarly situated persons.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that earlier several persons having identical facts had approached this Court for confirmation of their services and this Court in W.P.(S). No. 981 of 2020 (Tarun Kanta Topno Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) passed order

¶17

2

¶18

directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner of that case. The said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 56 of 2021 . It is further argued that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner as his case is identical to the petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 981 of 2020 and after issuance of direction, a reasoned order be passed in accordance with law, within a stipulated period of time.

¶19

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State fairly submits that since the counter-affidavit has not been filed, he is not in a position to contend that why the services of the petitioner has not yet been confirmed though he is working since 16.05.1994 on adhoc basis and case of similarly situated persons have already been considered by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶20

6. In view of fair submissions of learned counsel parties I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of present petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and upon consideration, if it is found that case of the present petitioner is identical to the petitioner of W.P.(S). No. 981 of 2020 same benefits shall be given to him and a reasoned order shall be passed on the pending representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

7. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to him within a further period of three weeks.

¶22

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶24

kunal/-

Judagi Choudhari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judagi Choudhari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Kumar Mahto Alias Dhananjay Kumar Mahato Alias Dhananjay Mahato Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sadhan Modak Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Usha Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Smt Rachna Devi Jhunjhunwala Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Rajnath Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Tuleshwar Prasad Kushwaha Vs the State of Jharkhand