Jharkhand High Court
Rajan Ram S/O Sohrai Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3926 of 2021
----
Rajan Ram S/o Sohrai Ram, R/o Sector 12-F, Qtr. No.1292, P.O. & P.S. Sector 12, Bokaro.
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Administration), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sale Tax, Dhanbad Circle, Bokaro.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG
----
4/ 17.10.2022 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to make necessary corrections in the writ petition, which are essential according to him.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections in the writ petition in course of the day.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed to grant him the benefits of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP / MACP and also to quash the decision dated 11.02.2016, whereby the respondents have taken a decision not to regularize and confirm the services of the petitioner.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 and superannuated on 31.12.2020. The petitioner worked as 3rd Grade employee. He also passed the departmental examinations like Hindi Noting Drafting, Accounts etc., which were held from time to time. After superannuation, the petitioner was granted all the retiral benefits including gratuity, provident fund etc. and he is also getting pension, but surprising, the benefit of regular promotion-cum-ACP / MACP as per the Scheme was not granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have taken a ground that since the petitioner's services was not regularized / confirmed, the aforesaid benefit has not been granted to him. It is the case of the petitioner that his prayer for regularisation was also rejected vide order -: 2 :- dated 11.02.2016 on the ground that though his appointment was made but the same was not against sanctioned post.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that admittedly, the petitioner worked from 1980 to 2020, but since he was not appointed against a sanctioned post, his services cannot be regularised, thus, he is not entitled for the benefit of ACP / MACP. He admits that the petitioner has been paid other retiral benefits, i.e., provident fund, gratuity and pension etc.
7. From submission of the parties and from the affidavit filed, it is admitted that since 1980, i.e., the year of appointment, till 31.12.2020, the petitioner worked and thereafter, he superannuated. For 40 long years the petitioner gave his services to the State. It is also admitted that the petitioner had passed the necessary departmental examinations. The fact that the petitioner is being paid pension regularly and he has received gratuity and other post retiral benefits, is also not disputed. The petitioner was appointed in unified State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar and on formation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was allocated the cadre of the State of Jharkhand. This fact has been admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit at paragraph 4(c). It is necessary to quote para 4(c), which is quoted hereinbelow:-
4 (c) After re-organization of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner as well as other such employees was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand.
8. The ground taken by the respondents is that the appointment of the petitioner was found to be irregular, which is also evident from Para 4(e) of the counter affidavit. The fact remains that the petitioner worked for 40 years and thereafter, was superannuated. After taking service from the petitioner for long 40 years, the respondents-State cannot deny regularisation of the services of the petitioners, more so, when the petitioner has been paid all his post retiral benefits.
9. In a similar matter where regularisation was refused, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos.121 of 2021 and 171 of 2021 has directed the State to regularise the service of the writ petitioner. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.15757 of 2022 and 5742 of 2022. Both these applications were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Special Leave to Appeal -: 3 :- No.15757 of 2022, arising out of L.P.A. No.121 of 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"From the material on record, it appears that the respondent was working since 1979 and thereafter he was transferred to another circle during which he passed the departmental examination as well and he was given the upgradation in the salary.
Under the circumstances, the order of regularisation cannot be said to be illegal."
10. The aforesaid principle will be applicable in this case also. Thus, the order dated 11.02.2016, whereby the respondents-State has refused to regularise the services of the petitioner, is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner. Upon regularisation, the petitioner will be entitled to receive the benefits of ACP / MACP, if they are otherwise found eligible. If it is found that the petitioners is eligible to get the benefits of ACP / MACP, consequential benefits will immediately be disbursed to the petitioner.
11. Thus, this writ petition stands allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02