Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bala Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 30 July, 2012

Author: Alok Singh

Bench: Alok Singh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
                    W.P.(S) No. 4117 of 2005
                                     
         Bala Prasad Singh                              ...  ...     ...     Petitioner
                                       Versus
         1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, 
             Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation 
             (Previously Public Health Engineering Dept.), Ranchi
         2.  The Regional Chief Engineer, Drinking Water and 
              Sanitation (Previously Public Health Engineering Dept.), Ranchi
         3. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and 
             Sanitation (Previously Public Health Engineering Dept.),
             Singhbhum (West)
         4. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and 
             Sanitation Division (Previously Public Health 
             Engineering Dept.), Singhbhum (East)            ...   ...     Respondents

         CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
         For the State                 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. I
                                              ­­­­­

06/30.07.2012

Petitioner   has   approached   this   Court   under   Article   226   of   the  Constitution   of   India   seeking   the   writ   of   Mandamus   commanding   the  respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Work  Inspector,   Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (Previously Public  Health Engineering Dept.), Jamshedpur, on which post petitioner is allegedly  working with effect from 20.10.1982. 

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.   Vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in paragraph 53, has held as  under : ­  "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases   where   irregular   appointments   (not   illegal   appointments)   as   explained   in   State   of   Mysore   Vs.   S.V.   Narayanappa,   (1967)   1   SCR   128,   R.N.   Nanjundappa   Vs.   T.   Thimmiah,   (1972)   1   SCC   409 and B.N. Nagarajan Vs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC   507 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 orders of the courts or of tribunals.   The question of regularisation of the services of such employees   may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles   settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light   of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State   Governments   and   their   instrumentalities   should   take   steps   to   regularise as a one­time measure, the services of such irregularly   appointed,   who   have   worked   for   ten   years   or   more   in   duly   sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of   tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are   undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be   filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are   being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six   months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any   already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on   this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing  of the   constitutional   requirement   and   regularising   or   making   permanent,   those   not   duly   appointed   as   per   the   constitutional   scheme."

Neither learned counsel for the petitioner nor learned counsel for the  State   are   in   a   position   to   make   statement   as   to   whether   any   Rule   or  Regulation or Scheme has been framed by the State for the regularization of  those   employees,   who   are   working   for   last   so   many   years   as   temporary  employees or adhoc employees and their initial appointment was not illegal  and was irregular only. 

Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State   submits   that   let   petitioner  move a representation before the authorities seeking regularization within 30  days. Thereon, Respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate order in accordance  with law within 90 days, considering the Rules, Regulations or Schemes, if  already framed as well as judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary,  State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors.(supra).

Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   states   that   let   present   petition   be  disposed of in the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the  State. 

Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.  

           (Alok Singh, J.) Manish