Jharkhand High Court
Banwari Choudhary, Satya Narain Singh ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. And State Of ... on 19 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR390(JHR)]
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. In these cases as almost similar question is involved, they were heard together for disposal.
2. The petitioners were working on daily wage under the State since 1982-84 and performing duties of class-IV employees. Some of them earlier moved before this court for 'parity of pay' and some of them for regularization of their services. This Court vide order dated 25th September, 1996 in the case of Banwari Choudhary and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 3872 of 1995(R), directed the respondents to pay the minimum of the scale of 4th grade employees to the petitioners of the said case.
3. In another case CWJC No. 2811/ 1998(R), Satya Narayan Slngh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., the Court vide order dated 17th November, 1999 made following observations and directions.
"Heard Mr. Dipak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned JC to GA.
In this writ application the petitioners seek issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners who have been working as chowkidars since 1983/1984.
In the counter-affidavit, it is stated, inter alia, that the Superintending Engineer, Building Construction, Hazaribagh has recommended the case of the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner, vide letter dated 2.7.1999 and their cases are being considered for appointment/ regularization.
Having regard to the fair stand taken by the respondents this application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment/regularization since they have been working for last 18/19 years. Such decision must be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
So far claim of the petitioners for payment of equal pay for equal work; they are directed to file a representation before the respondent No. 4, Superintending Engineer, PWD (Building Construction), Hazaribagh, who shall look into the matter and take a decision having regard to the contention of the petitioners that similar decision has been taken in favour of other daily wages employees."
4. It appears that the Court's order having not complied one MJC No. 398/ 2000 was filed. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh, thereafter, hurriedly took up the matter and regularized the services of the petitioners and Ors. vide order No. 81 dated 10th February, 2001. The petitioner Banwari Choudhary was regularized against a class-IV post at Giridih; the petitioner Satya Narain Singh against a class-IV post at Koderma, etc. The aforesaid order of regularization was not given effect and later on it was cancelled by the Chief Engineer vide letter No. 1554 dated 16th May, 2002. The petitioners were asked to continue on daily wage.
5. According to petitioners their services were rightly regularized in view of the Court's order passed in CWJC No. 2811/1998(R).
6. On the other hand according to respondents there being no provision to regularize the services of daily wage employees the order of regularization dated 10th February, 2001 was illegal.
7. Admittedly there is no Rule/Guideline framed by the State to regularize the services of daily wage employees. A guideline has been issued vide resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993 whereby it was decided only to give preference to daily wages employees over the outsiders and to relax their age at the time of appointment.
8. From the Court's order dated 17th November, 1999 passed in CWJC No. 2811/1998(R) It will be evident that this Court never directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For the said reason, this Court directed to consider the case of petitioners and others for appointments or regularization that means whichever is permissible. In view of the aforesaid direction, there was no occasion of the S.E. to regularize the services of petitioners without advertisement and selection. The officer should have followed the guideline vide resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993. After advertisement, calling for applications and selection for appointment against class-IV post, at best preference could have been given to the petitioners over the outsiders. If one or other petitioner was overage the authority should have relaxed the age.
9. In this background, if the order of regularization dated 10th February, 2001 was not given effect and was cancelled, no interference is called for.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to comply with the earlier orders and direction of the Court as referred above. They should consider the case of petitioners and other daily wage employees for regular appointment, as and when the class-IV posts are filled on regular basis, giving preference over the outsiders.
11. Till regular appointment is made, as per earlier order of this Court dated 25th September, 1996 in CWJC No. 3872 of 1995(R) Banwari Choudhary and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., the respondents will pay the petitioner's daily wages total sum of 30 days of which should be equal to the amount of minimum of the scale of pay of class-IV post and other admissible allowances.
12. As per earlier order passed of this Court if any amount is found payable to one or other petitioner, the respondents will pay it preferably within three months.
13. All the writ petitions stand disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.