Jharkhand High Court
Ratnesh Sharma vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 10 September, 2018
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S).No. 5037 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5032 of 2016
With
W.P.(S).No. 5036 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5045 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5046 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5047 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5048 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5049 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5053 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5058 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5059 of 2016
with
W.P.(S).No. 5060 of 2016
----------
In W.P.S. No. 5037 of 2016
1. Ratnesh Sharma
2. Ahmad Reza Perwez ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Jamtara.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Jamtara.
... ... ... ....Respondents 2 In W.P.S. No. 5032 of 2016 Sashi Bhushan Mahto ... ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Lohardaga.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Lohardaga.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5036 of 2016
1. Pankaj Kumar Pandey
2. Arun Bhushan Girdha
3. Sunil Kumar Singh
4. Md. Shahnawaz ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Latehar.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Latehar.
... ... ... ....Respondents 3 In W.P.S. No. 5045 of 2016 1. Mrinal Kishor 2. Yadav Chandra Jha 3. Anup Kumar Gupta 4. Primat J. Kumar Sah 5. Santosh Kumar 6. Rabindra Nath Hansdak 7. Lala Ajay Kumar 8. Devilal Hansda 9. Premtosh Baskey 10. Vijay Abinash Marandi 11. Pankaj Kumar Arya ... ... ... ...Petitioners -Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Dumka.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Dumka.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5046 of 2016
1. Usha Kiran
2. Ram Bilas Pandit
3. Mahadeo Hansda
4. Suresh Chandra Jha
5. Gun Sagar Rabidas
6. Subhash Kumar Thakur ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
42. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Godda.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Godda.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5047 of 2016
1. Sumant Kumar Pandey
2. Rajesh Kumar Singh
3. Deo Kumar Pathak
4. Shewali Dangi
5. Md. Gulam Sarwar ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi..
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Chatra.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Chatra.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5048 of 2016
1. Pravin Kumar
2. Sant Kumar
3. Tarun Kumar Sharma ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family 5 Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Hazaribagh.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5049 of 2016
1. Ajay Kumar Lakra
2. Ahsan Farooque
3. Chandan Kumar ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Chaibasa.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Chaibasa.
... ... ... ....Respondents In W.P.S. No. 5053 of 2016 1. Manoj Kumar Soren 2. Manoj Kumar 3. Vijay Rajak 4. Mathura Mahto 5. Shailesh Kumar Thakur 6 6. Nitu Devi ... ... ... ...Petitioners -Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Jamtara.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Jamtara.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5058 of 2016
1. Birendra Prasad
2. Neelam Khalkho
3. Atul Kumar ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Ranchi.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
... ... ... ....Respondents In W.P.S. No. 5059 of 2016 1. Sayed Asad Hussain 2. Jitendra Kumar Mahato ... ... ... ...Petitioners -Versus- 7
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Saraikela-Kharsawan.
8. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Saraikela-Kharsawan.
... ... ... ....Respondents
In W.P.S. No. 5060 of 2016
1. Pravir Kumar Sinha
2. Francis Tudu
3. Anil Kumar Paul
4. Ranjan Kumar
5. Sumit Murmu
6. Ajay Kumar
7. Abhishek Kumar Singh
8. Manish Kumar Tudu
9. Md. Asimul Haque
10. Manohar Pandit ... ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme, through its Director, New Delhi.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief, Ranchi.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, Ranchi.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State Vector Borne Disease Officer, Ranchi.
7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Sahebganj.
88. The District Vector Borne Disease Officer, Sahebganj.
... ... ... ....Respondents
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, AC to AAG Ms. Kanchan Kumari, AC to AAG Mr. K.M. Verma, GP-I Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, AC to GP-I For the U.O.I. : Mr. Devanand Kumar, C.G.C.
----------
18/ 10.09.2018 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:-
(I) For direction upon the respondents to consider the cases of the present writ petitioners for their absorptions/ appointment in regular pay-scale in parity with the appointments made to the similarly situated persons holding the post of Multipurpose Workers, Male (For short "MPW (M)") by respondent-State.
(II) For a direction upon the respondent-State not to discriminate the cases of the petitioners with that of similarly situated persons holding the post of MPW(M), especially because the petitioners have also been appointed under the Vector Borne Programme in the same mode and manner with that of MPWs(M).
(III) For declaring the action of the respondents as discriminatory in nature in only creating regular post with regular pay-scale of MPW(M) because the petitioners are also entitled for similar treatment to that of MPW(M). (IV) For a direction upon the respondents to consider and absorb the services of the petitioners to the post of Malaria Inspector on regular basis because the post of Malaria Inspector are sanctioned and lying vacant and the duties performed by the petitioners are same and similar to the duties and functions of Malaria Inspectors.
3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that a scheme was floated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India for prevention and eradication of vector diseases across the Country. The said scheme/ programme was known as "National Vector Borne Disease (for short "VBD") Programme". The said programme was implemented by the Central Govt. in phase manner. The 1st phase of the programme was initiated by 9 Govt. of India in the year 1993 and thereafter, 2nd phase level was implemented which is in existence at present with primary objection to eradicate and/or control the following diseases:-
(i) Malaria
(ii) Kalazar
(iii) Falaria
(iv) Dengue
(v) Chickengunya
(vi) Japanese Encephalitis
4. For the purpose of implementation of the aforesaid programme, the State Governments have been identified by the Central Govt. as a Nodal Agency and the said Programme is being implemented in the State of Jharkhand through National Health Mission (for short "NHM"). Under the said programme, in respect of various posts funds are made available by Govt. of India and certain funds were to be contributed by the State Govt. From time to time, Central Govt. has been issuing directions to State Governments for preparing project plan for augmentation of human resources by creation of posts as well as by converting contractual appointments into regular posts. For the purpose of implementation of the said programme, several posts were created by the State of Jharkhand for various works. One of such posts created under the VBD is Multipurpose Workers (Male). The present petitioners were appointed to the post of Malaria Technical Supervisors (for short "MTS") and Kalazar Technical Supervisors (for short "KTS") on different dates in different districts of State of Jharkhand. The posts of the petitioners are supervisory in nature and District Cadre Posts and they are working at Block Level in the different districts of State of Jharkhand.
It is the specific case of the petitioners that MPW(M) who were appointed under VBD Programme are working under the direct control and supervision of the present petitioners and these petitioners are supervising the works of MPW(M) at the field level. It is the case of the petitioners that appointment of petitioners as well as the persons holding the post of MPW(M) were made by the State of Jharkhand on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement issued from time to time. The appointments were made for a year but subsequently, keeping in view the perennial nature of work, the contract period of the petitioners as well as MPW(M) were renewed from time to time by the respondent-State. The appointments for the post of MTS, KTS, MPW were 10 undertaken by the respondent-State under the National Vector Borne Disease Programme. The terms of appointment of MPW as well as petitioners were same and similar inasmuch as both the aforesaid categories of posts were created for appointment on contractual basis being district cadre posts.
5. The Govt. of India, Ministry Health and Family Welfare vide its letter dated 20.03.2008 declared the State of Jharkhand as a Malaria Endemic State and further declared that Dengue, Chickengunya, Kalazar and other diseases were rapidly spreading in the State of Jharkhand and in the background of the aforesaid declaration, several appointments were made in the State of Jharkhand under the VBD Programme to the post of Supervisor including the petitioners as well as MPW(M). The Govt. of India has issued directions to all the State Governments for preparation of Project Implementation Plan in respect of National Rural Health Mission. Further, State Governments were directed to move from contractual appointments to creation of regular posts both for human resources and programme management. It is the specific case of the petitioners that inspite of clear directives by the Central Govt., no steps whatsoever was taken by the State of Jharkhand for creating regular posts of Supervisors and/or Field Workers under VBD Programme. The contract of the petitioners were renewed from time to time by the State of Jharkhand keeping in view the perennial nature of work but in spite thereof, the respondent-State has not come out with clear-cut guidelines/ policy for absorption of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons working under VBD Programme on regular basis. Even in the case of MPW(M) no steps were taken by the State Govt. for filling-up of the posts on regular basis having fixed pay-scales and the said MPW, who were working under direct control of the present petitioners, were also made to discharge their duties under contractual appointment on fixed pay ignoring the fact that the Central Govt. from time to time had given directions to the State Governments to fill-up the post under VBD Programme on regular basis having specified pay-scale and since no steps were taken by the State Govt. in respect thereof, the Central Govt. issued communication/ directives to the State Govt. for filling-up the posts by creation of required number of posts of MPW(M) and to recruit them as per their requirement.
In respect of the post of MPW(M), the Central Govt. had issued communication vide its letter dated 23.06.2015 to the State Govt. stating inter alia that the Central Govt. shall not support the sustaining of the manpower of MPW(M) beyond 30.09.2014 and directions were given to the State Govt. to take steps accordingly. After 30.09.2014, the post of MPW(M) was not funded by the 11 Central Govt. which led to disengagement of approximately 2300 persons working to the post of MPW(M) in the State of Jharkhand. Admittedly, the work of MPW(M) was perennial in nature and due to inaction on the part of the respondent- State in taking adequate steps for creating the regular post, the Central Govt. had taken a decision not to allocate fund for disbursement of salary payable to holders of the post of MPW(M) after 30.09.2014. Considering the nature of the work of MPW(M), the State Govt. although disengaged persons who were appointed to the post of MPW(M) had subsequently initiated steps for appointment to the post of MPW(M) in regular pay-scale. The State of Jharkhand in its proceeding held on 27.08.2015, took a decision for appointment of MPW(M) on contractual basis in regular pay-scale. The Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 21.07.2015 made recommendation for creation of 2150 posts of MPW(M). Pursuant to creation of posts of MPW(M) by the State of Jharkhand, even advertisement was published vide Advt. No. 13/2015 dated 22.12.2015, whereby recruitment process for appointment of MPW(M) was initiated on contract basis in a fixed pay-scale. Under the eligibility criteria for appointment of MPW(M), it was categorically provided that only such persons could apply, who had atleast worked for one year under the Health Department of the State of Jharkhand. In other words, the State of Jharkhand had implemented the direction of the Govt. of India though belatedly, of creating post under VBD Programme so far as MPW(M) were concerned by providing them regular pay-scale.
6. It is further stated that initially MPW(M) and petitioners were appointed on contract basis on consolidated salary to be paid to the petitioners as well as MPWs were primarily fixed by Central Govt. It is the specific case of the petitioners that as petitioners and other similarly situated persons, who have been appointed to the post of Technical Supervisors, is similar to the post of MPW(M), the direction of the Central Govt. regarding creation of regular posts and filling-up of the said post by the State Govt. is even applicable in respect of the posts held by the petitioners. Inspite of repeated directions issued by the Central Govt. till date no steps have been taken by the State of Jharkhand for framing appropriate guidelines for creation of regular posts of Technical Supervisors. The Central Govt. had directed the State Govt. to initiate the process for creating regular post otherwise it would not support post of MPW(M) beyond 30.09.2014. In the said communication it had been clearly stated that the Central would not support the component of manpower under VBD Programme after 31.03.2017, meaning thereby that the persons who are working to the post of Technical Supervisors will 12 have to face problem as has been faced by the MPW(M) pursuant to the directions issued by the Central Govt.
However, the respondent-State insptie of several directives issued by the Central Govt. had till date not initiated any process for sustaining the manpower under the VBD Programme including the post held by the present petitioners and hence, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances.
7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the action of the respondent- State is discriminatory in nature as directives of the Central Govt. were equally applicable in the case of the present petitioners. The Central Govt. had issued directions not to allocate fund for disbursement of salary of MPW(M) after 30.09.2014 whereas, in case of present petitioner, the said direction would take effect from 31.03.2017. It was further argued that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their cases for absorption/ appointment on regular posts having regular pay-scale in parity to the process which has been adopted in case of MPW(M). Mr. Sumeet Gadodia further argues that the cases of the petitioners are exactly similarly to the persons who are working to the post of MPW(M) and in fact, the MPW(M) were working as subordinate to the present petitioners and due to appointment of the said MPW(M) in regular pay-scale, even functional difficulties are being faced by the Supervisors in supervising the work of MPW(M). Learned counsel further argues that on several occasions contractual employees were absorbed in regular posts and regular pay-scale and at present 600 sanctioned posts of Malaria Inspectors are lying vacant in the State of Jharkhand and as such, the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their cases, as the nature of duties and functions of the Malaria Inspectors and the post held by the petitioners are same and similar but till date no action has been taken by the respondent for regularizing the services of the present petitioners. The petitioners have also preferred several representations before the respondent- authorities but no action has been taken on their representations till date.
8. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Chaitali Ch. Sinha, learned AC to AAG appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that in no way services of contractual employees can be regularized as the petitioners were working under a Scheme for a particular period. Admittedly, the services of the petitioners were 13 renewed from time to time but it doesn't give a right to them for regularization of their services. Mr. Jai Prakash further argues that the case of the petitioners are not similar to that of MPW(M) in view of the fact that even at present the petitioners and other MTS and KTS are under a contract with the Union of India and the Scheme/ Contract for the present financial year 2017-18 is still subsisting and the primary funding for the same scheme is also being borne by the Union of India. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in case of Bholanath Hansda @ Bhola Hansda Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2017 (3) JCR 795 (Jhr.) (FB) and submits that the petitioners were appointed under a Scheme and they accepted their appointments with stipulations and conditions mentioned in their contractual engagement and now, they cannot turn around to claim the benefits of equity and parity on the ground of hardship. Referring to para-26 onwards of the said judgment, learned senior counsel submits that the cases of the petitioners are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench and hence, they are not entitled for any equity. Learned counsel further argues that none of the petitioners can claim any right for appointment on regular post, which is dehors the rules neither there was any stipulations in their contractual engagement in this regard. No consideration can be given on the ground of hardship.
9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that vide order dated 26.04.2017, this Court had directed the respondent-authorities for filing specific affidavit bringing on records the grounds for denying regularizations to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. In compliance thereof, though an affidavit is filed but the query made by the Court remains unanswered. On 16.06.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents by giving one more indulgence for filing detailed affidavit, as to whether any decision has been taken for regularization of the services of the petitioners or the State in contemplation for formulating a policy in pursuance of Annexure-6 dated 02.07.2014. Though, again in compliance of the Court's order, counter-affidavit had been field but nothing was brought on record as to whether MPW(M) are getting pay-scale or they have been appointed on honorarium basis, in view of the advertisement at Annexure-5 page-59. From the advertisement itself it is crystal clear that appointment were made on a fixed pay-scale i.e. Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- and contrary to the said advertisement it is mentioned in the counter- affidavit that MPW(M) were appointed on honorarium basis and are getting 14 honorarium, not fixed pay-scale. It is also contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court on 16.06.2017. Further time was allowed to come-out with a specific stand, policy decision, whether the petitioners are also entitled for a fixed pay- scale which has been given to the MPW(M).
In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 02.01.2018, the respondents have filed a supplementary counter-affidavit on 16.02.2018 and in para-13 of the said affidavit it was submitted that, "inspite thereof the matter requiring so for absorption of KTS and MTS is concerned, the proposal for absorption of KTS and MTS at par with the MPWs has been sent to the higher authority for consideration. Therefore, before taking final decision the matter will be sent to the Law Department, Personnel Department and thereafter, to the Finance Department". From perusal of para-13 of the said affidavit it transpires that the matter is under active consideration and though proposal for absorption of KTS and MTS at par with the MPWs has been sent before the higher authorities for consideration but the same has not been considered till date and no decision has been taken in this regard.
10. As such, in view of the fact that in the State of Jharkhand, the Scheme is still subsisting and the cases of the petitioners are at par with that of MPW(M), I hereby direct the respondent No. 3, Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also respondent No. 4, Director-in-Chief, Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi to take a conscious decision for regularization/ absorption of the services of the petitioners in a fixed pay-scale in accordance with law.
11. As the matter is pending since long, let a decision in this regard be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-