Jharkhand High Court
Rajiv Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 29 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 7141 of 2023
1. Rajiv Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, S/o-Surendra Pd. Singh, R/o-
Village-Kundawapar, P.O.-Ekangar Dih, P.S.-Ekangar Sarai, District-
Nalanda, Bihar
2. Binod Kumar Rajak, Aged about 47 years, S/o-Late Lal Babu
Rajak, R/o-Moh.-Dr. A.A. Hai Complex, Exhibition Road, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna, Bihar
3. Binod Kumar, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Anil Pd. Sinha, R/o-Moh.-
N.T.P.C. Colony, P.O.-New Jaganpura, P.S.- East Ramkrishna Nagar,
New Jaganpura, District- Patna, Bihar
4. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Girish Kumar, R/o-
Village-Dashrathpur, P.O.-Pawapuri, P.S.- Griyak, District-Nalanda,
Bihar
5. Jitendra Chauhan, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Late Dev Nath
Chauhan, R/o-Moh.-90 Feet Road, East Indira Nagar, P.O.-Lohiya
Nagar, P.S.-Kankarbag, District- Patna, Bihar
6. Sujit Narayan, Aged about 44 years, S/o-Ishwar Narayan, R/o-
Village-Ranipur, P.O.-Ranipur, P.S.- Islampur, District-Nalanda,
Bihar
7. Hare Kishor Prasad, Aged about 45 years, S/o- Ramanand Prasad,
R/o-Village-Mahpur, P.O.-Hardiya, P.S.-Panchrukhi, District-Siwan,
Bihar
8. Surendra Chauhan, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Late Ramchandra
Chauhan, R/o-Village-Dila Das Ke Mathia (Tyian), P.O.-Kujhwa,
P.S.-Andar, District-Siwan, Bihar
9. Kartik Raj, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Awadesh Singh, R/o-Village-
Gorna Road, Power Ganj, (infront of Aklu Sah Meel), P.O.-Anight,
P.S.-Nawada, District-Ara (Bhojpur), Bihar
10.Niraj Kumar, Aged about 47 years, S/o-Baleshwar Prasad, R/o-
Village-Kariwan, P.O.-Bhathar, P.S.- Tharthari, District-Nalanda,
Bihar
11. Indrasen Kumar Ram, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Late Dev Pd.
Ram, R/o-Village-Tata Colony, Byapur, P.O.- Byapur, P.S.-Maner,
District-Patna, Bihar
12. Ajit Kumar Pandey, Aged about 55 years, S/o- Baleshwar Pandey,
R/o-Village-Barki Akauna, P.O.- Chotki Akauna, P.S.-Ghosi, District-
Jahanabad, Bihar
13. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Aged about 53 years, S/o-Umesh Singh,
R/o-Moh.-East Ramkrishna Nagar, P.O.-Khemni Chak, P.S.- East
Ramkrishna Nagar, District-Patna, Bihar
14.Ranvijay Singh, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Umesh Singh, R/o-
Moh.-Behind of Nagina Kirana, East Ramkrishna Nagar, P.O.-
Khemni Chak, P.S.- East Ramkrishna Nagar, District-Patna, Bihar
15. Manish Kumar, Aged about 46 years, S/o-Baleshwar Das, R/o-
Village-Mirzapur, P.O.-Kalyanpur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District-
Samastipur, Bihar
16. Asha Kumari, Aged about 51 years, S/o-Arjun Paswan, R/o-
Village-Gopalpur, P.O.-Veersinghpur, P.S.-Kalyanpur, District-
Samastipur, Bihar
17.Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Aged about 47 years, S/o-Ajay Kumar
Pandey, R/o-Village-Sadisopur (Samsara), P.O.- Sadisopur (Samsara),
P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna, Bihar
2
18. Rakesh Kumar Poddar, Aged about 45 years, S/o- Mahendra
Poddar, R/o-Village-Karuaa, P.O.- Karuaa, P.S.-Chakmehasi, District-
Samastipur, Bihar
19.Arvind Kumar Thakur, Aged about 46 years, S/o- Haridev Thakur,
R/o-Village-Kabargama, P.O.-Tira Jatmalpur, P.S.-Kalyanpur,
District-Samastipur, Bihar
20.Shyam Kumar Tiwari, Aged about 45 years, S/o-Bharat Tiwari,
R/o-Moh.-Piramnsur G.V. Road, P.O.-H.P. Office, Gaya, P.S.-Civil
Line, District-Gaya, Bihar
21.Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, Aged about 50 years, S/o- Giridhar Pd.
Singh, R/o-Village-Dhaboliya, P.O.-Kusheshwar, P.S.-Kusheshwar
Sthan, District- Darbhanga, Bihar
22.Kalanath Roy, Aged about 51 years, S/o-Giridhar Pd. Singh, R/o-
Village-Dhaboliya, P.O.-Kusheshwar, P.S.- Kusheshwar Sthan,
District-Darbhanga, Bihar
23. Satyanarayan Chaudhary, Aged about 46 years, S/o- Ram Binod
Chaudhary, R/o-Village-Rahiyar Konchi, P.O.- Rahiyar Konchi, P.S.-
Hathauri, District- Samastipur, Bihar
24. Punyanand Chaudhary, Aged about 48 years, S/o- Manikant
Chaudhary, R/o-Village-Laxminiya, P.O.- Rahiyar Konchi, P.S.-
Hathauri, District-Samastipur, Bihar
25. Kumud Devi, Aged about 49 years, S/o-Pawan Kumar Mishra,
R/o-Village-Saidpur, P.O.-Saidpur, P.S.- Chakmehasi, District-
Samastipur, Bihar
26.Manoj Kumar, Aged about 49 years, S/o-Shailendra Kumar, R/o-
Village-Choti Bhagyimari (Sakar Gali), P.O.-Sakar Gali, P.S.-Taljhari,
District-Sahebganj, Jharkhand
27.Mithilesh Kumar Mandal, Aged about 51 years, S/o- Late Shiv
Nandan Mandal, R/o-Village-Jitwariya, P.O.- Jitwariya, P.S.-
Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, Bihar ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
4. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AC to AAG-V
---
05/29.02.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing and commanding the Respondent Authorities to 3 absorb/appoint the Petitioners on regular basis to the posts on which they were working for several years as daily wager and regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment considering the Circular No.16441 dated 03.12.1980 and Circular No.3577 dated 25.04.1997 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna and the order dated 27.11.1999 and its modified order dated 16.12.1999 passed in CWJC No.2338/1998 (R), order dated 18.09.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.7386 of 2012 and order dated 08.10.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.1951 of 2016. As well as, in terms of the Order passed in W.P.(S) No.3732/2022, and W.P.(S) No.492/2023.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners in service considering the fact that no termination order was served upon them till date.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to make payment of their salary, which are being paid to the regular employees of the Road Construction Department from the date of initial appointment.
(iv) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was engaged/appointed by office order dated 06.09.1995 and petitioner nos. 2 to 14 were engaged/appointed by office order dated 31.12.1996 on daily wages on sanctioned vacant post and after their appointment, they were working in different circles/divisions/sub-divisions under Road Construction Department. The work of all the petitioners remained satisfactory. At that point of time, more than 3281 posts were lying vacant, which is apparent from the order passed in the case of "Etwa Oraon and others Vs. State of Bihar and others" in CWJC No. 2338 of 1998(R).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the year 1997, for the purposes of regular appointment, an advertisement was issued in daily newspaper Hindustan on 22.01.1997, pursuant to which the petitioners had applied for the post on which they were already working. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed in the regular establishment following all selection procedures in the light of the Circular No. 16441 dated 03.12.1980 and Circular No. 3577 dated 25.04.1997. Though the petitioners were appointed in regular establishment by the committee, but their services were not regularized, and consequently the petitioners had approached this Court by filing writ petition being CWJC No. 2366 of 1998(R) (Sanjay Kumar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others). He submits that there was an interim order dated 13.10.1998 in the said 4 Writ Petition indicating that the petitioners shall not be terminated till regular appointments are made or the services of the employees is regularized.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that other similarly situated persons were terminated by order dated 29.08.1998 and they filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 2338 of 1998 (R) (Etwa Oraon and others Vs. State of Bihar and others), in which an order dated 27.11.1999 was passed directing the respondents to take necessary steps to fill up all those posts which were lying vacant in the Road Construction Department. The said order was modified by order dated 16.12.1999, wherein the benefit of age relaxation was granted and the length of service was required to be considered. He submits that there was no specific direction for appointment of only the writ petitioners of the said Writ Petition being CWJC No. 2338 of 1998(R).
6. The instant writ petition indicates in Paragraph 14 that the services of the petitioners have been terminated on 29.08.1998 itself.
7. Upon this, the learned counsel submits that numerous orders have been passed in connection with other similarly situated persons for consideration of their respective cases. He has also submitted that the petitioners also filed representation before the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, way back in the year 2017 for appointing them on suitable post. He further submits that though several orders were passed for consideration of the representation, but he is not aware as to whether those persons were ultimately granted any appointment or not.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an appropriate order may be passed so that the grievance of the petitioners is taken up on an early date and appropriate order be passed by the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners have remained out of employment since 1998. However, there are numerous orders passed by this Court and he is not aware as to whether one or the other person has been granted any relief pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The learned counsel submits that if identically placed persons have been granted 5 any relief, there can be no reason to deny the relief to the petitioners subject to availability of vacancy and the policy of the State and other applicable law.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the representation by the petitioners was filed way back in the year 2017, and therefore, if any such decision in connection with the petitioners has already been taken, there may not be any requirement to take a fresh decision.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of relief prayed for by the petitioners, it appears that the service career of the petitioners has a long history and as per the writ petition itself, the services of the petitioners has remained terminated since 1998. It is not clear from the records of this case as to what the petitioners have been doing since 1998. However, a number of orders have been passed by this Court for considering the representation of various persons, but the outcome of such representation has not been placed on record.
12. It appears that the petitioners have also filed representations in the year 2017 as contained in Annexure- 8 series, but no adverse order has been placed on record by the petitioners in connection with the consideration of the representation of the petitioners or by one or the other similarly situated person.
13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioners and their entitlement, if any, in terms of the policy of the respondents and other applicable laws concerning the petitioners, is required to be considered by the respondent no. 3, if no decision so far has been taken in connection with the petitioners.
14. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of enabling the petitioners to approach respondent no. 3 within a period of one month from today by filing individual representations giving each and every detail about their appointment right from the beginning with supporting documents and also give the details of the earlier writ petition if any filed by the concerned petitioner individually or with any other person and order passed pursuant to such a writ petition.
6Each petitioner shall also annex copies of the orders or judgements which they seek to rely upon.
15. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent no. 3 shall look into the matter, verify the records and pass appropriate order by granting an opportunity of hearing to one representative of the petitioner(s). Separate reasoned order be passed with respect to each petitioner within a period of six months from the date of representation and be communicated to the petitioner(s) through speed post. If a decision in connection with the petitioners has already been taken, no fresh order need be passed and the respondent no. 3 shall simply communicate the decision to the petitioners.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners and it is for the respondent no. 3 to take a decision as per the applicable rules, norms, guidelines and policies of the State.
17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj