Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 22 December, 2022
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 1967 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 2527 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 5525 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 6436 of 2018
With
W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2019
With
W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2019
With
W.P.(S) No. 2857 of 2021
With
W.P.(S) No. 3906 of 2021
In W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018
1. Narendra Kumar Tiwari
2. Chhatrabali Sahu
3. Manoj Kumar
4. Prabhat Arbind Kumar
5. Md. Aslam Ansari
6. Pankaj Kumar Mishra
7. Md. Anwar Hussain
8. Arjun Kumar
9. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava ... ... ... PETITIONERS
- VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand.
5. Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
6. Joint Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand.
7. Under Secretary, Department, Department of Transport, Government of
Jharkhand.
RC
2
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
8. Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of
Jharkhand.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 1967 of 2018
Rakesh Kumar ... ... ... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.
2. The Finance Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Additional Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Jharkhand.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department,
Government of Jharkhand.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 2527 of 2018
1. Anshuman Kumar
2. Barnabas Barjo
3. Anupama Pandey
4. Ranthu Yadav
5. Saroj Kumari
6. Namita Philomena Ekka
7. Sudhir Kumar Bharti
8. Amit Raj Barla
9. Balmicky Kumar ... ... ... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand.
2. The Finance Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Director General, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government
of Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi.
4. Director, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of
Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi
5. Joint Director, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of
Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi
6. Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information
RC
3
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
Technology, office at Ground Floor, Engineer's Hostel-I, Near Golchakkar,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
7. Project Officer, Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology,
office at Ground Floor, Engineer's Hostel-I, Near Golchakkar, Dhurwa,
Ranchi
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 5525 of 2018
1. Uma Prasad Sinha.
2. Lakhbinder Singh
3. Arun Kumar ... ... ... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Higher &
Technical Education & Skill Development, Ranchi.
2. Director, Higher & Technical Education & Skill Development (Formerly
Science and Technology), Ranchi.
3. The Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad.
4. Principal In-charge, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2018
1. Rajiv Kumar
2. Dharmendra Kumar Kushwaha
3. Shashi Kant Dwivedi
4. Santosh Kumar
5. Ramakant Prasad
6. Mukhlal Oraon
7. Ajay Kumar ... ... ... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand
3. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
4. Divisional Commissioner, Palamau, Medininagar, District - Palamau
5. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.
6. Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 6436 of 2018
1. Suresh Walter Nag
RC
4
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
2. Nirmal Kumar Singh
3. Kevar Prasad Rao
4. Dilip Kumar
5. M. Jagdish
6. Naresh Kumar Prasad
7. Md. Sajid ... ... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand.
4. Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand.
5. Deputy Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand.
6. Commissioner of Transport, Transport Department, Government of
Jharkhand.
7. District Transport Officer, Ranchi
8. District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur
9. District Transport Officer, Dhanbad.
10. Managing Director, National Information Centre Services Incorporated,
Engineers Hostel, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2019
1. Anil Kumar Sinha
2. Anjay Ram ... ... ... PETITIONERS
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Rural Development Department (Panchayati Raj), Government of Jharkhand,
through its Secretary.
4. Additional Secretary, Rural Development Department (Panchayati Raj),
Government of Jharkhand.
5. Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand.
6. Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand.
7. Under Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
RC
5
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
In W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2019
Anirudha Kumar Singh ... ... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Director General, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government
of Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi.
4. Director, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of
Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi
5. Joint Director, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of
Jharkhand, Mesur's Road, Ranchi
6. Chief Executive Officer, Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information
Technology, office at Ground Floor, Engineer's Hostel-I, Near Golchakkar,
Dhurwa, Ranchi
7. Project Officer, Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology,
office at - Ground Floor, Engineer's Hostel-I, Near Golchakkar, Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 2857 of 2021
Mangra Oraon ... ... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Inspector General (Prison), Government of Jharkhand.
4. Principal Probation Officer, Home, Prison Department, Government of
Jharkhand.
5. State of Bihar, through Department of Home, Government of Bihar.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
In W.P.(S) No. 3906 of 2021
Imran Alam @ Imran Alam Ansari ... ... PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand.
5. Transport Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of
Jharkhand.
... ... ... RESPONDENTS
RC
6
W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioners Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate.
Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
Mr. Kripa Shanker Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG
Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, GA-II
Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
C.A.V. ON 03.11.2022 Pronounced on 22.12.2022
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and
identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various
dates and are being disposed of by this common order.
PRAYERS
2. Petitioners have prayed for quashment of order denying
regularization as also for regularization of their services in light of
Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra
Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC
238.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. According to petitioners, they had been granted appointment on contract basis to the post of Computer Operators or to other Class-IV posts in different departments and had been discharging their duties to the satisfaction of respondents for the last more than ten years. In addition to discharging their duties as Computer Operators or on Class-IV posts, they have been performing allied works as assigned to Class-III and/or Class-IV employees respectively. It is further case of the petitioners that considering exigency of work and in wake of computerization of work, a proposal was sent by the respondents for creation of posts of Computer Operators. However, the Committee of the Finance Department recommended to hire Computer Operators from outside source in the year 2005 and since thereafter, petitioners and others are continuously working on the said post. Extension were also granted from time to time to the petitioners with express approval from the higher authorities.
RC 7 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
4. It is further case of the petitioners that on 13.02.2015, the Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 was notified [Hereinafter referred to as '2015 Regularisation Rules']. The said '2015 Regularisation Rules' clearly stipulates that the cut-off date for reckoning 10 years' of qualifying service for consideration for regularization would be 10.04.2006. However, the same was challenged before the High Court by filing various writ petitions, which was heard and dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 17.11.2016, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2015 and other analogous cases. The said Judgment was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423 - 7429 of 2018 [arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 19832 - 19838 of 2017] and the same was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2018 clearly observing therein to regularize services of employees who have completed 10 years of service. It is further case of the petitioners that all along they have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the respondents and there has been no allegation of any misconduct ever alleged on their part and no departmental proceeding or any other disciplinary proceedings have ever been initiated against them. It is further case of the petitioners that even after outcome of Judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court, they have issued letter no. 1101, dated 29.11.2018, terminating services of Computer Operators and further to take services of Computer Operators from the agencies of JAP-IT.
5. It is case of the petitioners (working in Transport Department) in W.P.(S) No. 6347 of 2018, 6436 of 2018 that on 12.12.2018, an office order no. 135, as contained in memo no. 2322, was issued by the respondents - Transport Department stipulating therein that payment of honorarium to petitioners from December, 2018 onwards shall be made via external source through agency. The term 'honorarium' thereby demonstrate the pre-determination of respondents to deny regularization and continue making temporary arrangements in a permanent manner despite the deprecation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter by issuance of different memos, the services of all the petitioners have been terminated with immediate effect.
RC 8 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
6. Case of the petitioner (working in Housing Department) in W.P.(S) No. 1967 of 2018 is that vide office order as contained in Memo No. 1853, dated 30.03.2018, the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, stated that terms of contract comes to an end on 31.03.2018 and no further extension shall be granted. Petitioner filed representation followed by various communications but no heed was paid.
7. Case of the nine petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2527 of 2018 is that they were appointed and working as Data Entry Operators/ Assistant Programmer with the respondent - Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of Jharkhand. Their services from time to time were extended by the respondents. The JAP - IT, vide letter no. 598, dated 31.03.2014, released salary and stated that the payment will be made through their service provider M/s. IT Solutions. Grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners have been released/ terminated from the post of Computer Data Entry Operator/ Assistant Programmer without issuance of any show-cause and without giving any opportunity of hearing. Surprisingly, petitioners received one email dated 02.02.2018 from M/s. Luminous Infoways Pvt. Ltd. on instruction of respondent nos. 3 to 5 asking them to join their services otherwise they will be removed from the service of respondent nos. 3 to 5. Petitioners also filed representation but no heed has been paid to the same.
8. Case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5525 of 2018 is that a Scheme of the Community Polytechnic in India was introduced in the year 1986 for developing man power and other technic in the country by the Government. The said Scheme was implemented in the Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad and several employees had been appointed on daily wages basis in which petitioners had also been appointed against different posts in between the years 1986 to 1990. Petitioners continued to work as such without any break and without any complaint from any quarter. However, with effect from 31.08.2007, the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad stopped taking work from the petitioners and since then petitioners have been sitting without work. Being aggrieved, petitioners moved in W.P.(S) No. 1133 of 2008, which was disposed of on RC 9 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others 31.10.2017. Thereafter, respondents passed reasoned order vide Memo No. 449, dated 28.03.2018 rejecting claim for absorption of the petitioners though petitioners discharged work from 1986 to 2007 without any break or without any complaint. Petitioners had been appointed legally and they performed their duties for long period and as such they are entitled for absorption/ regularization.
9. Case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2018 is that they had been appointed on contract basis to the post of typists/ computer operators in the District of Garhwa and had been working for last more than ten years to the satisfaction of the respondents without any complaint from any quarter and their services had been extended from time to time. It is case of the petitioners that vide office order as contained in Memo No. 1296, dated 03.11.2018, petitioners have been relieved whereas vide letter no. 774, dated 15.05.2018, they have absorbed/ regularized four computer operators, which is totally discriminatory.
10. Case of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2019 is that they had been appointed on contract basis to the post of Computer Operators and had been working as such since 01.06.2002 and 03.08.2005 respectively. Apart from operating Computes, petitioners also performed allied works as performed by clerks, typists and assistants to the satisfaction of the respondents without any complaint. To utter surprise of the petitioners, the State came up with memo no. 12, dated 07.12.2018 informing the decision not to regularize the petitioners and thereafter, vide memo no. 4461, dated 18.12.2018, petitioners have been relieved. Petitioners preferred various representations but no heed has been paid.
11. Case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2019 is that he was appointed as a Peon/Driver on 04.05.2005 and since then he started discharging his duties as such to the satisfaction of respondents without any complaint and his services was extended from time to time. However, vide letter dated 18.01.2018, he has been asked by the respondents to sign affidavit otherwise his services will be terminated. Later on, petitioner came to know that the work of Driver/ Peon would be taken through the outsourced agency selected by JAP-IT. Being aggrieved, he preferred representation but no heed has been paid. The respondent authorities, RC 10 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others without issuing any show-cause notice, orally removed/ terminated petitioner from service and did not allow him to enter the premises or even sign attendance sheet.
12. Case of the petitioner (working as night watchman under the Principal Probation Officer, Home Prison Department, Government of Jharkhand) in W.P.(S) No. 2857 of 2021 is that he had been appointed on 01.09.1998 vide order as contained in Memo No. 218 as a daily rated employee and thereafter he continued discharging his duties as such without any complaint from any corner. Petitioner was also granted basic pay scale of Rs.2,550 - 3,200. However, vide memo no. 1414, dated 28.06.2021, issued by the Inspector General (Prison), Government of Jharkhand, it was informed that services of the petitioner cannot be regularized pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4614 of 2012 for the reason that petitioner's age in writ petition W.P.(S) No. 3827 of 2017 is mentioned as 58 years and by the time when writ petition W.P.(S) No. 3827 of 2017 was disposed of, petitioner had attained age of superannuation whereas it was an inadvertent mistake that petitioner's age was mentioned as 58 years though date of birth of the petitioner is 10.10.1962, which is mentioned in AADHAR Card as also in other documents. Petitioner is a tribal and poor person discharging his duties as a night watchman for last 18 years.
13. Case of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3906 of 2021 is that he was appointed to the post of Computer Operator on 12.07.2008 against the vacant post of Typist on contract basis and he performed the work of computer operator and allied works to the satisfaction of the respondents for more than ten years. Appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and salary was also enhanced accordingly. However, the respondent no. 6, on 29.11.2018, issued directions to terminate services of computer operators and thereafter a decision was taken on 30.11.2018.
14. In nutshell the main grievances of writ petitioners in all these writ petitions, whether they be Computer/Data Entry Operators, Watchmen or Peon/Driver, are for regularization of their services which has been turned down by the respondents and as such being aggrieved they have knocked door of this Court for the relief prayed for in the respective writ petitions.
RC 11 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
15. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Vipul Poddar, Mr. Rajendra Krishna assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar, as also Mr. Kripa Shanker Nanda, learned counsels appearing on behalf of petitioners in respective writ petitions.
16. Learned counsel argued that petitioners have discharged their duties for more than 10 years with an unblemished career and to the satisfaction of respondents. Even after Judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State has come up with impugned letter terminating services of petitioners and further decision has been taken to hire services of Computer Operators from the agencies of JAP-IT. Learned counsel further argued that JAP-IT - Jharkhand Agency for Promotion of Information Technology is not a statutory body and the same is merely an agency without any statutory or constitutional backing, which was conceptualised to accelerate growth of information technology in Jharkhand and to implement policies of the State Government in the area of information technology. The said Agency can provide support on call basis or can be at the best a stop-gap arrangement but not sufficient for discharge of regular and continuous office work including computer work as is being performed by the petitioners. The said stop-gap arrangement will amount to perpetration of adhocism. Learned counsel further argued that the work being handled by the petitioners are highly sensitive and confidential in nature and if the man-power is outsourced, as it being sought to be done by the respondents, the same will have serious repercussions on the issues of confidentiality and accountability. Learned counsel further argued that the proceeding dated 30.11.2018 indicate that the respondents have adopted a hyper-technical interpretation of the 2015 Regularisation Rules and have reached to a conclusion that petitioner are irregularly appointed against the unsanctioned posts. Learned counsel further argued that the said Committee has conveniently overlooked nature of work being performed by the petitioners and has also not considered the letter no. 847, dated 07.08.2013 and letter no. 827, dated 25.08.2011 wherein it has clearly been stated that the Computer Operators have been working against the sanctioned posts and RC 12 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others also that the appointment of Computer Operators have been approved by the Administrative Cadre Committee. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents have overlooked letter no. 340, dated 15.03.2007 vide which posts of Computer Operators were created and sanctioned. The decision of the Committee is pre-judged, biased, influenced and is actuated with malice. The initial appointment of the petitioners were legal and valid. Learned counsel further argued that State has the power to make ad-hoc appointments to meet exigencies and when action of the State suggests that a legal ad-hoc arrangement is continued on a permanent basis and a denial to give benefits of permanency and regularisation occurs, then the said action is not only unconstitutional but also amounts to exploitation. Such a circumstance also give rise to a legitimate expectation amongst the persons like the petitioners that they would be accorded fruits of their labour and that they would be given permanency and regularisation. Learned counsel further argued that after creation of State of Jharkhand, till date no appointment has been made on regular basis and the office is running with shortage of staffs. The petitioners have been discharging function of regular employees against the vacant sanctioned posts for last so many years without any complaint and till date no serious effort has been made by the State to fill such vacant posts. Learned counsel further argued that petitioners can be deemed to be working against the sanctioned posts, if at all the posts of petitioners are not sanctioned posts, by virtue of work performed by them and by virtue of the fact that the respondents are taking work of other Class-III and Class-IV posts from the petitioners. After taking work for more than ten years and making payment of salary out of public exchequer, the respondents cannot take a plea that the petitioners have been working against non-sanctioned posts. Merely because of technicalities, petitioners cannot be made to suffer ignoring their continuous work like a regular employee.
17. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents are adopting discriminatory approach and are resorting to pick and choose approach, which is apparent from the reasoned order as well as the employees who are still illegally working with the respondent-Department. Learned counsel RC 13 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others further argues that the action of the respondents is completely in disregard to the mandate of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18. Learned counsel further argued that respondents have not followed mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have acted in blatant violation of the observation of Hon'ble Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the appellants, if they have completed ten years' of service on the date of promulgation of Regularisation Rules, they ought to be given the benefits of service rendered by them and they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc. Respondents have not brought on record any instance of misconduct by any of the petitioners for which any departmental action was taken or proposed to be taken against any of the petitioners. Admittedly when the petitioners were appointed, there was no service rules governing appointment process for the post of Computer Data Entry Operator. Respondents cannot contend that the appointment of the petitioner is in violation of any service rules as there was none. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018) 13 SC 432 at paragraph-9 held that when an employee is offered the service on contract basis and there is no Rule in place for offering, such kind of appointments could not be said to be illegal and in contravention of Rules as there were no such Rules available at the relevant point of time. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court at para-7 discussed in detail as to how the Judgment in the case of Uma Dei was being violated and various State Governments were using exploitative forms of employment and are defeating the very object and purpose of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi.
19. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgment and orders:-
(i) Para 13-17 to W.P.(S) No. 3762 of 2015 (Chandreshwar Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors and other analogous cases)
(ii) Para-1,3 & 5 of L.P.A. No. 256 of 2016 (The State of Jharkhand through the principal Secretary, Rural Development Department & Anr. vs. Amar Ram & Ors. ) RC 14 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
(iii) Para 6-16 of L.P.A. No. 560 of 2016 (The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Forest Environment and climate Change Department & Anr. vs. Chandreshwar Prasad Sharma).
(iv) Paras 9,10,11,15,16,17 18 of W.P.(S) No. 6524 of 2017 and other analogous case (Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.).
(v) Para 7-10 to W.P.(S) No. 861 of 2011(Ritesh Ranjan & Anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.).
(vi) Paras 3-6 to W.P.(S) No. 3791 of 2017 (Vibha Lal vs. Jharkhand Police Housing Corp. Ltd. & Ors.).
(vii) Para 3 & 5 to L.P.A. No. 204 of 2018 (Jharkhand Police Housing Corp. Ltd. & Ors. through its Chairman cum Managing Director vs. Vibha Lal).
(viii) Para 4, 8, 14, 18, 19, 23, 35, 36, 37, 38 & 39 in case of Nihal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others (2013) 14 SCC 65 .
(ix) State of Gujarat and others Vs. R.J. Pathan and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 354.
(x) Babita Kumari and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 4682 of 2021.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS - STATE
20. Per contra counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.
21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that in terms of the policy decision of the state Govt., the petitioners of the present writ petitions were initially engaged with the answering departments on contract basis. There is no substantive right of the petitioners to claim extension of their engagement or even regularization of their service beyond provisions of law. The claim pertaining to extension of service/contract of the petitioners and other similarly situated computer operators and peon/driver has already been decided by the department vide order dated 26.10.2021, thus it is wrong to say that the petitioners have been denied to work without any written order. In light of the decision taken by the State Govt., the services of the computer operators were to be taken RC 15 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others through the empaneled Agency of the JAP IT, as such, vide order dated 26.10.2021, the Department had turned down the requests of the petitioners and other similarly situated computer operators working in the department for extension of period of their contract in order to avail the services of the computer operator through outsourcing agency. However, the petitioners were free to come through outsourcing agency. Petitioners themselves have chosen not to come through outsourcing agency. Prayer of the petitioners for extension of their period of contract has been rejected, there was no occasion for the petitioners to attend the office. However, it is not true that the offices were locked and they have been denied entry.
22. Learned counsel further argued that there is no question of regularization of services of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners are not working presently and they have not challenged the Scheme of engagement by outsourcing. There is no post of computer operators in the Department /State Government and there is no rule for that. The petitioners along with thousands of people have been working through Agency and as such, there is no question of regularization, it is the prerogative of the State to extend the contract/engagement of the petitioners or not. He further submits that some similarly situated persons have been appointed by way of another contractor /agency and if the petitioners approach that contractor/agency, who is in panel of the State, their engagement will be accepted.
23. Learned counsel emphatically argued that new posts cannot be created as per Scheme of Regularisation. The petitioners did not work against the sanctioned posts. They do not come under the definition of irregular employees as mentioned under Section 2(ii) of Regularisation Rules, 2015, framed by the State of Jharkhand. No procedure had been adopted in appointment of the petitioners such as Advertisement in newspaper, examination etc. The reservation policy of the State has also not been followed for appointment. Petitioners have not challenged the Regularisation Rules, 2015 whereas Clause 3(ka)(ii) of Regularisation Rules, 2015 clearly stipulates that if the employee is working on a post which is not sanctioned, his case for regularisation shall not be considered and further, for regularisation, posts shall not be created. Learned counsel RC 16 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others further places reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, para-53 which states as under:
"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayananappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in Para-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of the orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this Judgment."
24. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) SCC 247, Para-10 which reads as under:
"It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularization" enunciated in Uma Devi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employees and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointment will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualification and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
25. Countering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners have relied upon Para-10 of the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State RC 17 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Under the circumstances, we are of the view that regularization rule must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years' of service on the date of promulgation of regularization rules, ought to be given the benefits of service rendered by them."
Learned counsel submitted that in light of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same has been made with regard to the cut-off date fixed by the State Government in the Regularisation Rule, 2015 and as such the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para-10 of the said Judgment is of no help to the petitioners.
26. Further countering the reliance of the petitioners in the Judgment passed in the case of Nihal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, learned counsel submitted that the said Judgment has been passed in totally different context and as such the same is of no help to the petitioners.
27. Learned counsel further argued that no procedure had been adopted in appointment of petitioners. The advertisement in the newspaper was also not advertised. There is no evidence to show that at the time of appointment, any educational qualification or technical qualification like typing speed was prescribed or the reservation rules were followed. The petitioners do not come within the ambit of Section 2(ii) of the Regularisation Rules, 2015 and hence writ petitions have no merits and fit to be dismissed. The posts against which petitioners claims to had been working, are not sanctioned posts. At best it can be said that petitioners were governed by terms of contract accepted by them. There is no legitimate expectation for their regularization to the post.
28. Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Aniruddha Kumar Singh in W.P.(S) no. 1971 of 2019, he had worked in the institution temporarily against the post only for the period of one year and nine months only and as such his application for re-appointment has been rejected by the Director General, Shri Krishna institute of Public Administration, Ranchi.
RC 18 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others So far case of the petitioners Anil Kumar Sinha and Anjay Ram is concerned, said Anil Kumar Sinha was appointed as a Typist on 01.06.2002 in Panchayati Raj Directorate. However the post of Typist-cum-Computer Operator was not sanctioned post. Similarly, Anjay Ram was appointed to the post of Computer Operator on 03.08.2005 in Panchayati Raj Directorate but the said post was not sanctioned and he did not complete 10 years on 04.03.2015. The due procedures were not followed for their appointment which is violation of principles of natural justice.
Similarly, the appointment of the petitioner Imran Alam @ Imran Alam Ansari in W.P.(S) No. 3906 of 2021 was illegal as process of appointment itself was dehors the rule. Petitioner accepted terms of contract with open eyes and as such there is no question of legitimate expectation for his regularization.
So far petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6436 of 2018 is concerned, they worked against unsanctioned posts. They do not come under the definition as mentioned under Section 2(ii) of the Regularisation Rules, 2015 framed by the State. No procedure had been adopted in their appointment. Even the reservation policy was not followed for appointment.
29. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following Judgment:-
(i) In case of Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. Vs. AIR India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407
(ii) In case of Tarun Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 8126.
(iii) State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Anande Kumar Yadav & Ors., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 560.
(iv) Union of India & Ors. Vs. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 773 FINDINGS OF THE COURT
30. Heard the parties at length. The aforesaid cases have got chequered history. Earlier also the cases were rejected by the respondents on similar grounds particularly that they were not working against the RC 19 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others sanctioned posts and without following procedures of law i.e. without any advertisement they had been appointed which is in contravention of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India, which is an integral part of our system and as per settled law that the State action has to be tested on the touch stone of equality, it can be said that the appointment is dehors the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is not only irregular but also illegal. The said observation of the State in its impugned orders/action is neither logical nor rational in view of observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 as also in several other cases cited aforesaid. While rejecting case of the petitioners, the respondents - State has failed to appreciate purport of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the rejection order it appears that State has failed to appreciate the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra). The action on part of the respondents can be termed to be misconceived as the law has not rightly been appreciated while considering cases of the petitioners.
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 Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, wherein it has been held thus:-
RC 20 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others "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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
32. The cases regarding regularisation of the Computer Operators fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4682 of 2021 [Babita Kumari and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others], and this Court, disposed of the same after considering celebrated Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 292. Relevant paragraph of the said Judgment reads as under:-
"3. We have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said that they will not be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale nor that they should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course adopted by the High Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned rather than to appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the High Court to the extent the RC 21 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others same deny the claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular incumbents are appointed. We direct that they shall be continued in service till regular appoints are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part accordingly."
33. Further, similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Narinder Singh Ahuja & Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors., reported in (2014) 146 DRJ 167, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
"15. In the opinion of this Court, since the respondents nowhere dispute that there is need for the performance of the work that the petitioners were discharging all along and there is also no dispute that the project and funding (for the project) would continue till 2017, the decision to discontinue the petitioners' engagement is based only on the policy to outsource the contractual employment to a third party. The petitioners are not insisting on regularization, given the nature of the employment or engagement, which is project based. However apart from the decision to outsource" engagement of contract employment to a third agency, there is no rationale to discontinue the petitioners' contracts. The justification that the employees engaged through the contractor are paid lower wages is arbitrary, because the "outsourced" or outsourcing agency would have to be paid its service charges. The lower wages paid, therefore, is, in effect, because of the charges/fees paid to the contractor/outsourced agency. The facts of this case clearly reveal that even though the work is to be performed by contractual employees, the reason for discontinuance of the petitioners employment is not their replacement with regular appointees, but instead,with another set of contractual employees. The state/respondents cannot, in the circumstances of this case, say that discontinuance of such employment cannot be gone into by the Court because the petitioners were aware that their contracts ended."
34. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court also in case of Pankaj Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No.6524/2017 and this Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 reiterated the same as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
35. Earlier in several cases this Court issued a clear direction upon the respondent-State to stop the practice of contractual appointments in the State of Jharkhand and State was directed to go for regular appointment, but it appears that no heed has been paid to the directions of this Court. Admittedly, the policy decision of the State is seldom interfered by the Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but wherever it RC 22 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others appears that policy decision of the State is not inconsonance with the Rules, illegal and arbitrary, the Court is compelled to interfere.
36. Considering other aspects of the matter and taking into consideration that the respondents are in need of their services and, therefore, they have been allowed to continue for long years, their cases cannot be turned down and as such a direction was given to take a fresh decision for regularization of their services in view of observations made in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra) and also for extension of their contract period till regular appointments are made. The cases of these petitioners have been turned down without making any reference of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra). It was incumbent upon the respondents to consider their cases and come out with a specific observation that all these petitioners cannot be considered for regularization since they are charged of misconduct and other valid objections. From bare perusal of the impugned order the grounds which have been raise are not at all tenable in the eyes of law. The petitioners have completed ten years' of service on the date of promulgation of regularization rules. It is binding upon the respondents to give benefits of service rendered by them by regularizing their services. In absence of any valid rules, at the time of their appointment, their services cannot be said to be violative of any service rules and termed to be illegal.
37. In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2018) 13 SC 432, this factum has clearly been decided. The objective of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) has not been followed rather used to defeat the very purpose of regularisation. The contention of the petitioners have not been met with by the respondents and only a formal denial has been made which clearly envisaged that just to frustrate their claim, plea of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been taken. Regarding sanction of posts and advertisement for appointment, the issue has already been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others (2013) 14 SCC 65. Para-20 of the said Judgment reads as under:
RC 23 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others "20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants.
Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need."
Since the appointments are being made to fill-up gap by the outsourcing agency, it can safely be considered that hefty sums of money through the outsourcing agency for performance of the duties is being spent and the Government is undertaking the financial burden for discharge of functioning in case of Computer Data Entry Operators and hence the stand of financial burden on the State Government is not praised rather fit to be turned down and not accepted.
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of State of Gujrat and others Vs. R.J. Pathan and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 354 has observed in Para-19 which reads as under:
"19. Even in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) also, it was a case of irregularly appointed employees. Even otherwise, in view of the facts and circumstances of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The case before this Court was with respect to the employees working with the State of Jharkhand which was created only on 15.11.2000 and therefore it was contended on behalf of the irregularly appointed employees that no one could have completed ten years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10.04.2006, which was the cut-off date fixed under the relevant rules of the State of Jharkhand.
The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) was a case of irregular appointment and not illegal appointment. Such observations are binding upon all concerned in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and it clearly gives a message that the State of Jharkhand has erred in holding contrary to the provisions.
39. In the case of Manish Gupta and another Vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 485, it has been observed in para-12 as under:
"12. ... ... ... It is settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee and RC 24 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Rattan Lal V. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 43] and on the order of this Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 292]."
From aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in different cases, it can comfortably be said that if petitioners are continuing to work for more than ten years without any objection and the respondents - State is in need of their work, they cannot be replaced by another set of employees solely on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts without any advertisement.
40. In plethora of Judgments, some of them have already been cited hereinabove, the law has been laid down and clear-cut observation has been made for consideration of cases of the petitioners in light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). The State having failed to do so, is hereby directed to consider cases of the petitioners in view of aforesaid view, as expressed in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra).
41. Let it be made clear that enough is enough. The directions of the Court have not been taken into consideration by the respondents in right perspective rather the State has failed to appreciate the legal proposition and as such the respondent authorities are directed to examine individual cases taking into consideration the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra), particularly paragraph-10 thereof and after examining individual cases, if it is found that there is no any other legal impediments, shall consider their individual cases for regularization in accordance with law and pass an order to that effect within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, the employees who have worked for more than ten years and have retired during pendency of the writ petition and their cases were turned down on the aforesaid plea of the respondents, their cases also need to be considered from retrospective dates and if they have rendered for more than ten years of unblemished services, the order of regularization should also be passed in their cases too along with consequential benefits in accordance with law.
RC 25 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
42. The aforesaid issues have been duly considered and accordingly answered in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anothers reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432. The Hon'ble Court was very conscious and aware of the fact that "the employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/ adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in the case of Umadevi (Supra)". None of the instant cases are the case of backdoor entry. At that very point of time there were no rules in place of offering such appointments. Thus appointments cannot be said to be illegal and in contravention of the rules as there were no such rules available at the relevant point of time.
43. In view of discussions and interpretations made in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others (Supra) this Court is also of the view that the petitioners herein are required to be appointed on regular basis as a one- time measure in view of paragraph-53 of the Judgment passed in the case of Umadevi (Supra) as also in view of the fact that they have completed more than ten years of service and as such their cases be considered for regularization and in their cases also a clear-cut order be passed for regularization of their services with all consequential benefits and arrears of pay within a stipulated period i.e. sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order be paid to them.
44. The Court is fully conscious of the fact that mandamus cannot be issued for regularization but in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court exercises its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction for regularization with all consequential benefits considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases of Sheo Narain Nagar (Supra), Umadevi (Supra) (paragraph-53 thereof), Nihal Singh and Others (Supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Supra) (specifically paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 thereof).
RC 26 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others
45. As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand allowed. Resultantly, the impugned orders mentioned hereunder in respective writ petitions are hereby quashed and set aside:
i. Proceeding dated 30.11.2018 of the Committee of the respondents as contained in Memo No. 1154, dated 05.12.2018 as also the letter no. 1101, dated 29.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 6; order no. 135, dated 12.12.2018, as contained in Memo No. 2322, dated 12.12.2018 and the Memo No. 1188, dated 27.12.2018, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Transport Department, Ranchi; Memo no. 2587, dated 19.12.2018, issued under the signature of District Transport Officer, Palamau; Memo no. 623, dated 20.12.2018, issued under the signature of District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa; and Memo no. 3259, dated 17.12.2018, issued under the signature of District Transport Officer, Bokaro in W.P.(S) No. 6347 of 2018;
ii. Memo No. 1853/Ranchi, dated 30.03.2018, issued by Additional Secretary, Urban Development Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand and the Letter no. 2238, dated 25.04.2018, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 1967 of 2018;
iii. Letter no. 2083, dated 06.11.2018, issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 6436 of 2018;
iv. Memo no. 449, dated 28.03.2018, passed by Principal Incharge, Government Polytechnic, Dhanbad in W.P.(S) No. 5525 of 2018 v. Order dated 03.11.2018, as contained in memo no 1296, issued by Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa in W.P.(S) No. 6337 of 2018 vi. Memo no. 12, dated 07.12.2018 of the Committee of the respondents;
memo no. 4461, dated 18.12.2018 and letter no. 4447, dated 18.12.2018 in W.P.(S) No. 126 of 2019 RC 27 W.P. (S) No. 6347 of 2018 and nine others vii. Order dated 27.02.2019, passed by the Director General, Sri Krishna Institute of Public Administration, Government of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2019;
viii. Letter no. 1414, dated 28.06.2021, passed by Inspector General Prison, Government of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 2857 of 2021
46. As a sequel thereof, all the Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC