Jharkhand High Court
Uma Kant Sahay vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 31 August, 2016
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 6229 of 2015
Uma Kant Sahay ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj &
N.R.E.P. (Special Division) Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms & Raj Bhasha,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, JC to G.A-IV.
--------
3/ 31.08.2016Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Extension Officer (Industries & Commerce) in the unified State of Bihar, by its Department of Rural Development, and was posted under the District Rural Development Authority, (in short "DRDA"), at Loharga. The posts were advertised by the Rural Development Department of the unified State of Bihar and the candidates were selected through Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board. By the order contained in Memo No. 7476 dated 14.7.1987, the selected candidates were recommended to be posted as Extension Officer (Industries & Commerce) in different DRDAs, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 12, and the petitioner was allotted the DRDA at Ranchi, where the petitioner was to give his joining. It is stated that the joining of the petitioner was not accepted at DRDA, Ranchi, and subsequently, by the letter No. 9102 dated 25.6.1988, the petitioner was again allotted DRDA at Lohardaga, where he was directed to give 2 his joining. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his joining, which was also accepted and he started to work as Extension Officer (Industries & Commerce) under the DRDA, Lohardaga.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3022 of 1999(R) with the prayer to provide him due seniority with effect from 14.7.1987, on which date, he was initially appointed on the post of Extension Officer (Industries & Commerce) at DRDA, Ranchi. Though some directions were issued in the writ application and in the connected contempt case, being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 139 of 2002, but no such relief could not be given to the petitioner.
4. In the meantime, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were claiming for absorption of their services by the State Government, and writ applications were filed in the State of Bihar as also in the State of Jharkhand. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, a writ application was filed by similarly situated other persons in this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7280 of 2005 (Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary & Ors.). In the said writ application, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, in which, it was stated that the service conditions of the employees of DRDA, as determined by the then State of Bihar, continues in the State of Jharkhand also. It was also stated that in order to improve the service conditions of the petitioners, a resolution No. 4916 was adopted on 7.9.2005, under which, a decision was taken to absorb the Extension Officers working in different DRDAs of the State of Jharkhand on equivalent posts, for which, corresponding consents of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Finance Department, Law Department and also the Cabinet of the State had already been taken. In the light of the above categorical statement of the respondents, this Court by order dated 27.10.2009 disposed of the writ application directing the Secretary, Panchayati 3 Raj Department, Government of Jharkhand, to comply with the directions issued by the State Government within a period of three months. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-9 by the petitioner in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. However, in spite of the aforesaid order, the services of the Extension Officers working in DRDAs, were not absorbed by the State of Jharkhand, which compelled those petitioners to file a contempt application also in this Court. Thereafter, a notification was issued by the State Government as contained in Memo No. 958 dated 17.2.2011, whereby, in view of the direction of this Court, services of 70 Extension Officers (Industries & Commerce) and 18 Statistical Investigators working in different DRDAs in the State, were absorbed by the State Government with effect from the date of issuance of this notification, i.e., 17.2.2011. The said notification has been brought on record as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
5. The case of the petitioner is that in the State of Bihar also, writ applications were filed by the concerned employees, being CWJC No. 6263 of 2007 and CWJC No. 6467 of 2007, which were allowed by the Patna High Court, and in compliance of the said directions given in those writ applications, notification has been issued as contained in Memo No. 6479 dated 27.7.2009, by the State of Bihar in its Department of Rural Development, brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ application, whereby the services of all the Extension Officers working in the different DRDAs in the State of Bihar, have been absorbed with effect from the dates of their initial joining.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the Extension Officers, who were appointed along with the petitioner, and who remained in the State of Bihar, have been absorbed by the State of Bihar with effect from the date of their initial joining, whereas the services of the Extension 4 Officers, who at the time of bifurcation of the State were working within the territorial limit of the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, continued in the State of Jharkhand, their services have been absorbed only with effect from the date of notification issued by the State of Jharkhand, i.e.,17.2.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner and the other Extension Officers working in the State of Jharkhand are also entitled to the same benefits, which have been given to their counterparts in the State of Bihar and they are also entitled to get their services absorbed with effect from the date of their initial joining. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondent State of Jharkhand, in not extending the same treatment to the Extension Officers working in the State of Jharkhand, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, and is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that after the bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, the State Government has to take and implement its own policy decisions independently, without being influenced by the State of Bihar. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State, that the decision taken by the parent State is not at all binding upon the State of Jharkhand.
8. Learned counsel has further pointed out from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that 317 posts of Extension Officers were created at the block level, for execution of centrally sponsored Integrated Rural Development Programmes, and these posts were temporary, which were extended from time to time. Initially the establishment cost of these posts were met by the Centre and the State in the ratio of 50:50. It has further been pointed out from the counter affidavit that the Extension Officers, so appointed, were not the employees of the State Government, rather, they were the employees of the DRDAs, which are the autonomous agencies registered under the Societies 5 Registration Act. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the entire establishment of District Rural Development Authority, including the posts of Extension Officer, were subsequently met by the State Government.
9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent State that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7280 of 2005, as also the decision of the State Government, the services of the petitioner and the other similarly situated persons have since been absorbed by the State Government with effect from 17.2.2011 and they have been posted as Gram Panchayat Supervisors under the Panchayati Raj Department. Learned counsel reiterated her stand that the State of Jharkhand is not bound by any decision to the contrary, which might have been taken by the parent State of Bihar, wherein, the services of Extension Officers, working in the State of Bihar, have been absorbed with effect from the date of their initial joining, and has submitted that it is the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand to absorb the services of the Extension Officers working in the DRDAs in the State of Jharkhand, only with effect from the date of issuance of notification, i.e., 17.2.2011, and not from any early date. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the policy decision of the State Government cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, and as such, there is no merit in this writ application.
10. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that there are several writ applications pending in this Court on the same point and for the same relief. It is submitted that it would be appropriate that all the writ applications be heard together.
11. Since the present writ application has been heard and other writ petitions are not listed before this Court, this submission of learned counsel for the State cannot be acceded to. The fate of the other writ applications on the same point and for the same relief, pending if any, may be governed by this order. 6 Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the posts were advertised by the unified State of Bihar in its Department of Rural Development and the selection of the Extension Officers were made through Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board. Pursuant to their selection, the services of the petitioner and other Extension Officers were placed under different DRDAs. It is only by way of chance that seventy selected candidates, including the petitioner, were posted in the DRDAs, which after creation of the State of Jharkhand, fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. The matter of absorption of services of the Extension Officers posted under different DRDAs was considered by the State Government and the State Government agreed to absorb their services and a counter affidavit to that effect was also filed by the State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 7280 of 2005. Taking into consideration the decision of the State Government itself, the direction was issued by this Court by order dated 27.10.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 7280 of 2015, to implement the decision of the State Government within the period of three months and pursuant thereto, the notification contained in memo No. 958 dated 17.2.2011 has been issued by the State Government in its Department of Rural Development, which has been brought on record by the respondent State in its counter affidavit as Annexure-A. This notification, however, shows that the services of the Extension Officers, including the petitioner have been absorbed by the State Government with effect from the date of issuance of notification, i.e., 17.2.2011. Admittedly, the services of the Extension Officers, who remained in the State of Bihar, have been absorbed by the State of Bihar, by the notification contained in memo No. 6479 dated 27.7.2009, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, with effect from the date of initial joining of those Extension Officers, who admittedly were appointed along with the petitioner in the same process of selection. The stand of the learned counsel for the respondent State that 7 the State of Jharkhand can take its own policy decisions and it is not bound to follow the decisions taken by the State of Bihar, though sounds very good, but at the same time, it is the well settled principle of law that the State action must not be arbitrary and Discriminatory {Authority: (2016) 3 SCC 582}. In the present case, the fact however remains, that it was only per chance that seventy Extension Officers remained in the State of Jharkhand, pursuant to bifurcation of the State, due to the fact that the DRDAs in which, they were posted fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. Since similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with petitioner have been given the benefit of their absorption of the services by the State of Bihar with effect from the date of their initial joining, there is no reason as to why, the Extension Officers posted in the State of Jharkhand be subjected to step-motherly treatment and they be denied the same benefit. The denial of such benefit to the Extension Officers posted in the State of Jharkhand, is absolutely an arbitrary and discriminatory action in the garb of the alleged policy decision of the State Government, and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which cannot be allowed to continue.
12. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the respondent State is directed to forthwith absorb the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated Extension Officers, whose services have since been absorbed as Gram Panchayat Supervisors, with effect from the date of their respective initial joining as Extension Officers (Industries and Commerce). The respondent authorities are directed to issue the notification to that effect positively within the period of eight weeks from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order.
13. This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the direction as above.
( H. C. Mishra, J.)
AFR/ R.Kr.